* panasonic-laptop driver oddity
@ 2009-01-15 15:47 Andy Whitcroft
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2009-01-15 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harald Welte; +Cc: linux-kernel
We have been looking at your panasonic-laptop driver with a view to
back porting it to 2.6.27, and the following inconsistancy was pointed
out to me. In bl_set_status() we ensure that bright is no lower than
sinf[SINF_AC_MIN_BRIGHT] and sinf[SINF_DC_MIN_BRIGHT], and then check if
it is lower than sinf[SINF_AC_MIN_BRIGHT]. That seems redundant.
static int bl_set_status(struct backlight_device *bd)
{
struct pcc_acpi *pcc = bl_get_data(bd);
int bright = bd->props.brightness;
int rc;
if (!acpi_pcc_retrieve_biosdata(pcc, pcc->sinf))
return -EIO;
if (bright < pcc->sinf[SINF_AC_MIN_BRIGHT])
bright = pcc->sinf[SINF_AC_MIN_BRIGHT];
if (bright < pcc->sinf[SINF_DC_MIN_BRIGHT])
bright = pcc->sinf[SINF_DC_MIN_BRIGHT];
if (bright < pcc->sinf[SINF_AC_MIN_BRIGHT] ||
bright > pcc->sinf[SINF_AC_MAX_BRIGHT])
return -EINVAL;
We could not decide if this was simply belt and braces to constrain the
value, or if this should be a check against sinf[SINF_DC_MAX_BRIGHT].
Perhaps you could clarify?
-apw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2009-01-15 15:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-01-15 15:47 panasonic-laptop driver oddity Andy Whitcroft
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.