On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:18:13PM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:26:49PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:59:29AM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > > I am currently preparing a patch series which makes fujitsu-laptop use a
> > > > sparse keymap for hotkey handling. Before that will happen, though,
> > > > acpi_fujitsu_hotkey_notify() could use a revamp because it is pretty
> > > > hard to read as it is. To avoid posting everything at once, here are a
> > > > few patches which IMHO make that function easier to read. Some of these
> > > > changes might be a matter of taste, so feel free to NACK them or suggest
> > > > a preferred alternative.
> > >
> > > This patch series provides a significant clean up to the functions it
> > > focuses on. As such I have no real objections to them. However, because my
> > > Fujitsu laptop doesn't have any of the hotkeys of later models I am unable
> > > to test these patches with real hardware. Have you been able to do so? If
> > > they have been verified I have no problem acking these. Otherwise I will
> > > have to do as much as I can (given no access to relevant hardware) to ensure
> > > the overall behaviour isn't changed.
> >
> > I tested these on a Lifebook E744, which is capable of generating
> > KEY4_CODE ("ECO on/off button") and KEY5_CODE ("Wireless/Bluetooth
> > on/off button"). I checked that these hotkeys still work fine with this
> > patch series applied. By temporarily reversing some logical conditions,
> > I also did my best to ensure that unexpected behaviors (unknown ACPI
> > event code, kfifo failures) are still handled in the same way as
> > previously (apart from the "Push keycode into ringbuffer" debug message,
> > which is now only printed upon a successful push due to the last patch).
>
> Thanks for clarifying. It may be worth adding a comment to the effect that
> the patches were tested on a Lifebook E744. That aside, I'm happy with
> these clean ups.
>
> Acked-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Darren: do you want me to explicitly ack all 4 parts, or the above
> sufficient for your processes?
The above is sufficient as far as I'm concerned.
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
