On 1/23/07, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi!
> @@ -456,14 +456,26 @@ static int apm_get_info(char *buf, char
> case 1: units = "sec"; break;
> }
>
> - ret = sprintf(buf, "%s 1.2 0x%02x 0x%02x 0x%02x 0x%02x %d%% %d %s\n",
> + seq_printf(m, "%s 1.2 0x%02x 0x%02x 0x%02x 0x%02x %d%% %d %s\n",
> driver_version, APM_32_BIT_SUPPORT,
> info.ac_line_status, info.battery_status,
> info.battery_flag, info.battery_life,
> info.time, units);
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> - return ret;
> +static int proc_apm_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> +{
> + return single_open(file, proc_apm_show, NULL);
> }
> +
> +static const struct file_operations proc_apm_fops = {
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .open = proc_apm_open,
> + .read = seq_read,
> + .llseek = seq_lseek,
> + .release = single_release,
> +};
> #endif
>
> static int kapmd(void *arg)
Perhaps now is good time to make the code shared?
Well, my intention was to remove last ->get_info users and
remove struct proc_dir_entry::get_info altogether.
I didn't know about APM merging efforts.
