On 2021-10-01 4:58 p.m., Kelvin.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 15:18 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> Didn't notice this before, but the "check_access()" name is not very >> helpful because it doesn't give a clue about what the return value >> means. Does 0 mean no error? Does 1 mean no error? From reading >> the >> implementation, I can see that 0 is actually the error case, but I >> can't tell from the name. > > Yes, will improve the naming, like change it to "has_gas_access()" in > v2 if a v2 patchset is preferred. I'd keep the GAS name out of the kernel. How about something along the lines of is_firmware_running()? Maybe a comment for the function would be good as well. Logan
