On Tuesday, 17 of June 2008, Matt Helsley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 02:14 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce function pointer platform_pci_power_manageable to be used
> > by the platform-related code to point to a function allowing us to
> > check if given device is power manageable by the platform.
> >
> > Introduce acpi_pci_power_manageable() playing that role for ACPI.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > drivers/pci/pci.c | 1 +
> > drivers/pci/pci.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> > @@ -315,6 +315,16 @@ static pci_power_t acpi_pci_choose_state
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > +static bool acpi_pci_power_manageable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > + acpi_handle handle = DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(&dev->dev);
> > +
> > + if (!handle)
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> Seems like a bad idea to pass non-true/false values using a bool.
> Wouldn't an int return type be more appropriate here?
That's a bug actually. It should be 'false'.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
