On 18 September 2014 00:07:53 CEST, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:47:23PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> The disp attribute is write-only, but sysfs doesn't know this.
>Currently
>> show_sys_acpi() is mimicking sysfs behavior, if the underlying acpi
>call
>> should fail. This was introduced in 6dff29b63a5bf2eaf3 "eeepc-laptop:
>> disp attribute should be write-only". This is not ideal; behaving
>like
>> sysfs is better left to sysfs.
>>
>> Introduce EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_WO() to instantiate a write-only
>> attribute, and declare the disp attribute with it. Sysfs makes sure
>> userspace can only write to disp at all times. This removes the need
>for
>> mimicking the sysfs behavior in show_sys_acpi() and store_sys_acpi(),
>> but we'll stick with -EIO, as changing sysfs return values should not
>be
>> taken lightly.
>>
>> This change also causes EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR() to be used only
>for
>> R/W attributes. This enables us to drop the _mode argument from the
>> macro and use DEVICE_ATTR_RW() internally while we're at it. Append
>_RW
>> to the name for readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Here we're sticking with -EIO as return values. It should be said
>that the
>> commit mentioned above did change the error value from -ENODEV to
>-EIO. I'm
>> still in two minds about whether the show_sys_acpi and store_sys_acpi
>should go
>> back to returning ENODEV. We'll probably stick with -EIO, though, as
>there is
>> no strong reason other than "it was like that before".
>>
>> drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> index c6d765f..a85da4f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> @@ -311,14 +311,18 @@ static ssize_t show_sys_acpi(struct device
>*dev, int cm, char *buf)
>> return store_sys_acpi(dev, _cm, buf, count); \
>> }
>>
>> -#define EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR(_name, _mode, _cm) \
>> +#define EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(_name, _cm) \
>> EEEPC_ACPI_SHOW_FUNC(_name, _cm) \
>> EEEPC_ACPI_STORE_FUNC(_name, _cm) \
>> - static DEVICE_ATTR(_name, _mode, _name##_show, _name##_store)
>> + static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(_name)
>>
>> -EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR(camera, 0644, CM_ASL_CAMERA);
>> -EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR(cardr, 0644, CM_ASL_CARDREADER);
>> -EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR(disp, 0200, CM_ASL_DISPLAYSWITCH);
>> +#define EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(_name, _cm) \
>> + EEEPC_ACPI_STORE_FUNC(_name, _cm) \
>> + static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(_name)
>> +
>> +EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(camera, CM_ASL_CAMERA);
>> +EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cardr, CM_ASL_CARDREADER);
>> +EEEPC_CREATE_DEVICE_ATTR_WO(disp, CM_ASL_DISPLAYSWITCH);
>>
>> struct eeepc_cpufv {
>> int num;
>
>Ah, you did what I asked on a previous patch here, nevermind :)
Yea, I thought I'd make more sense this way.
Thanks,
Frans
--
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
