On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 15:57 +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Since Surface Pro 3 does not follow the specs of "Windows ACPI Design
> Guide for SoC Platform", code in drivers/input/misc/soc_array.c can
> not detect these buttons on it.
The comments below are all just style trivia
and can be ignored entirely.
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/surfacepro3_button.c b/drivers/platform/x86/surfacepro3_button.c
[]
> +#define handle_surface_button_notify(type, code) \
> +({ \
> + int ret = 0; \
> + if (SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_PRESS_##type == event) \
> + pressed = true; \
> + if (pressed || \
> + (SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_RELEASE_##type == event)) { \
> + key_code = code; \
> + ret = 1; \
> + } else \
> + ret = 0; \
> + ret; \
> +})
This seems a bit complicated.
The else ret = 0 isn't necessary as it's initialized to 0.
bool might be better than int.
> +static void surface_button_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> +{
> + struct surface_button *button = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + struct input_dev *input;
> + int key_code = KEY_RESERVED;
> + bool pressed = false;
> +
> + if (!handle_surface_button_notify(POWER, KEY_POWER) &&
> + !handle_surface_button_notify(HOME, KEY_LEFTMETA) &&
> + !handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_UP, KEY_VOLUMEUP) &&
> + !handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_DOWN, KEY_VOLUMEDOWN))
> + dev_info_ratelimited(&device->dev,
> + "Unsupported event [0x%x]\n", event);
Some might prefer alignment to the open parenthesis:
if (!handle_surface_button_notify(POWER, KEY_POWER) &&
!handle_surface_button_notify(HOME, KEY_LEFTMETA) &&
!handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_UP, KEY_VOLUMEUP) &&
!handle_surface_button_notify(VOLUME_DOWN, KEY_VOLUMEDOWN))
I think the older switch/case was easier to understand.
--
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
