On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 02:31:50PM +0200, Marco Chiappero wrote:
> 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
potentially, if they seem safe yes. I'd rather review what you have than
a stale version that you're already changing so please send the patches
over and then we'll see.
> 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?
either way, that patch is not compulsory for any of the functionalities
you posted.
--
mattia
:wq!
--
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
