Il 04/06/2011 09:58, Mattia Dongili ha scritto:
struct kbd_backlight { - int mode; - int timeout; + unsigned int base; + unsigned int mode; + unsigned int timeout; struct device_attribute mode_attr; struct device_attribute timeout_attr; }; - static struct kbd_backlight *kbdbl_handle; +static int sony_kbd_handle = -1;there seems to be no real point initializing this to -1. Also, can it be made part of the struct above?
I'm including these two changes in every patch that provides a new capability using different handles. I need some more time to prepare the new patches, but before resending I'd like to hear some more feedbacks: removing any acpi notification in patch #8, do patches from 1 to 9 look fine? Is it possible to merge them, as they are, as soon as I repost them? If some changes are required please let me know. I've also posted a patch fixing the "0x0" handle issue ("fix potential improper handle usage"), I suppose it to be okay, can I include it in my original source file before creating the patches? Or should I include that patch in the patchset instead?
Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
