Hello,
I will fix all those style problems and add some comments.
On Friday 28 November 2014 12:33:28 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rfkill_set_states(rfkill, !output, !output);
>
> You can also write it like:
>
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> rfkill_set_states(rfkill, !output, !output);
>
> which looks better to me at least.
>
In whole module I'm using this style:
f1();
if (f1_failed)
return;
f2()
if (f2_failed)
return;
So I would like not to change it for one function.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rbtn_set_block(void *data, bool blocked)
> > +{
> > + /* FIXME: setting soft rfkill cause problems, so disable
> > it for now */ + return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct rfkill_ops rbtn_ops = {
>
> static? const?
>
Yes, static const should be used.
>
> > +/*** module functions ***/
> > +
> > +static int __init rbtn_init(void)
> > +{
> > + return acpi_bus_register_driver(&rbtn_driver);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __exit rbtn_exit(void)
> > +{
> > + acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&rbtn_driver);
> > +}
> > +
> > +module_init(rbtn_init);
> > +module_exit(rbtn_exit);
>
> module_acpi_driver()?
>
No, see PATCH 2/3.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
