On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:45 PM Mark Pearson <markpearson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/2/2020 5:29 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Mark Pearson <markpearson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > You specifically added a new ABI, where is documentation? It's a show stopper. > Ah - my apologies I didn't know that was a requirement. > > Any pointers on where to add it? I looked in Documentation/ABI and I > couldn't find anything around thinkpad_acpi to add this to. > Should there be a sysfs-devices-platform-thinkpad_acpi file? > > If that's the case I'm happy to look at creating that but as a first > time kernel contributor would you object if I took that on as a separate > exercise rather than as part of this patch. I'm guessing it would need > more time, care and reviewers from other contributors to the > thinkpad_acpi.c driver Since it's an old driver its ABI is listed here https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/admin-guide/laptops/thinkpad-acpi.rst ... > > Why not simple > > > > if (output < 0) > > return output; > Agreed. I'll fix > > I think your prototype should be > > > > int foo(cmd, *output); > Looking at it again - I agree. And after returning only error codes, you may do above as simple as int ret; ret = ...(.., &output); if (ret) return ret; ... return 0; ... > As a minor note I think these all arose because of getting checkpatch to > run cleanly. I prefer one line too and if that's your preference it > works for me. Checkpatch shouldn't complain (update it if it does). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
