On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +0930, I wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:49:02AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > index 59107a599d22..2f563aa00592 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> > @@ -360,41 +360,26 @@ static int set_lcd_level(int level)
> > {
> > acpi_status status = AE_OK;
> > acpi_handle handle = NULL;
> > -
> > - vdbg_printk(FUJLAPTOP_DBG_TRACE, "set lcd level via SBLL [%d]\n",
> > - level);
> > -
> > - if (level < 0 || level >= fujitsu_bl->max_brightness)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > - status = acpi_get_handle(fujitsu_bl->acpi_handle, "SBLL", &handle);
> > - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > - vdbg_printk(FUJLAPTOP_DBG_ERROR, "SBLL not present\n");
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + char *method;
> > +
> > + switch (use_alt_lcd_levels) {
> > + case 1:
> > + method = "SBL2";
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + method = "SBLL";
> > + break;
> > }
>
> This is not necessary something actionable, but I am wondering about the
> rationale of using a switch statement here given that there really are only
> two options. In my mind at least a simple "if" clause would be clearer and
> easier to read (with or without the braces):
>
> if (use_alt_lcd_levels) {
> method = "SBL2";
> } else {
> method = "SBLL";
> }
Ah, the reason for the use of the switch was to prepare the way for patch
06/11 which adds an autodetection value to the definition of
use_alt_lcd_levels. All good.
Regards
jonathan
