On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 07:22:27PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> This patch changes the default return value of the driver *{get, set}
> functions from 0 (success) to -EIO, since the driver default error
> value is -EIO.
>
> All the functions now check for TOS_FAILURE, TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED and
> TOS_SUCCESS.
>
> On TOS_FAILURE a pr_err message is printed informing the user of the
> error (no change was made to this, except the check was added to the
> functions not checking for this).
>
> On TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED we now return -ENODEV immediately (some
> functions were returning -EIO)
>
> On TOS_SUCCESS we now return 0, as a side effect, a new success value
> was added, since some functions return one instead of zero to
> indicate success.
>
> As a special case, the LED functions only check for TOS_FAILURE on
> *set, and check for TOS_FAILURE and TOS_SUCCESS on *get with their
> default return value set to LED_OFF.
>
> Also the {lcd, video}_proc* functions were adapted to reflect these
> changes to their parent HCI functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Azael Avalos <coproscef...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 432
> ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 217 insertions(+), 215 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> index e24f0f5..0034341 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> /* Return codes */
> #define TOS_SUCCESS 0x0000
> +#define TOS_SUCCESS2 0x0001
UGH, thanks Toshiba :-(
> #define TOS_OPEN_CLOSE_OK 0x0044
> #define TOS_FAILURE 0x1000
> #define TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED 0x8000
> @@ -467,7 +468,8 @@ static void toshiba_illumination_set(struct led_classdev
> *cdev,
> {
> struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev = container_of(cdev,
> struct toshiba_acpi_dev, led_dev);
> - u32 state, result;
> + u32 result;
> + u32 state;
>
I should add that this is a apparently a preference of mine, and other
maintainers do not enforce this, some actively discourage it. I apologize for
this inconsistency among the maintainers, it came to my attention that the very
person I was modeling this preference after in fact feels the opposite. Sigh.
For the time being, we stick with the preference I've stated, for consistency
within this file and through drivers/platform/x86 if nothing else.
> /* First request : initialize communication. */
> if (!sci_open(dev))
> @@ -479,8 +481,6 @@ static void toshiba_illumination_set(struct led_classdev
> *cdev,
> sci_close(dev);
> if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> pr_err("ACPI call for illumination failed\n");
> - else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> - return;
> }
>
> static enum led_brightness toshiba_illumination_get(struct led_classdev
> *cdev)
> @@ -496,14 +496,12 @@ static enum led_brightness
> toshiba_illumination_get(struct led_classdev *cdev)
> /* Check the illumination */
> result = sci_read(dev, SCI_ILLUMINATION, &state);
> sci_close(dev);
> - if (result == TOS_FAILURE || result == TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR) {
> + if (result == TOS_FAILURE)
> pr_err("ACPI call for illumination failed\n");
> - return LED_OFF;
> - } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> - return LED_OFF;
> - }
> + else if (result == TOS_SUCCESS)
> + return state ? LED_FULL : LED_OFF;
>
I believe it is more typical, and therefor more natural to my eye, to test for
failure.
else if (result != TOS_SUCCESS)
return LED_OFF;
return state ? LED_FULL : LED_OFF;
}
Applies throughout. However, there is of course no functional difference and
others may argue differently. I'm mentioning it because there is an issue that
requires a respin below. I'll leave it to you which way you want to handle this
in this driver.
...
>
> static int video_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> {
> struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev = m->private;
> u32 value;
> - int ret;
>
> - ret = get_video_status(dev, &value);
> - if (!ret) {
> - int is_lcd = (value & HCI_VIDEO_OUT_LCD) ? 1 : 0;
> - int is_crt = (value & HCI_VIDEO_OUT_CRT) ? 1 : 0;
> - int is_tv = (value & HCI_VIDEO_OUT_TV) ? 1 : 0;
> + if (get_video_status(dev, &value))
> + return -EIO;
>
> - seq_printf(m, "lcd_out: %d\n", is_lcd);
> - seq_printf(m, "crt_out: %d\n", is_crt);
> - seq_printf(m, "tv_out: %d\n", is_tv);
> - }
> + int is_lcd = (value & HCI_VIDEO_OUT_LCD) ? 1 : 0;
In this case, these need to be defined above. Your build test should have caught
this:
drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c:1292:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed
declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
int is_lcd = (value & HCI_VIDEO_OUT_LCD) ? 1 : 0;
^
Did it not?
...
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
