On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:37:10PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 8/3/23 23:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:02:29PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: ... > > > + pci_dbg(dev, "ACPI device constraint: %d\n", constraint); > > > > Does it make sense before the below check? Why can we be interested in the > > _exact_ negative values? (Note that non-printing is already a sign that either > > we don't call this or have negative constraint.) > > There are two different negative values that can come up: > -ENODEV or -EINVAL. Both were interesting while coming up with this series > because they mean something different about why a constraint wasn't > selected. > > -ENODEV means the constraint wasn't found. > -EINVAL means the constraint was found but something is wrong with the table > parser or the table itself. I found the table parser wasn't working > correctly originaly thanks to this. > > Maybe now that I've got it all working you're right and this should go > after the error checking. Or maybe moved to the acpi_get_lps0_constraint(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
