Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] acpi: support IBM SMBus CMI devices

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:30:01 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 
> > I'm only half please with this. You change the function named, but it
> > doesn't follow the calling convention of acpi_dock_match(), which is a
> > little confusing.
> > 
> > Anyway, I will need an ack from the ACPI people before I can pick this
> > patch. Or maybe they should even push it upstream themselves.
> 
> I am confused.  Looking at that bunch of ifs, acpi_is_video_device returns 1
> for a match and 0 for no match.  acpi_bay_match returns 0 for a match and
> -ENODEV for no match, which just happens to work with the ACPI_SUCCESS macro.
> acpi_dock_match returns ACPI error codes.  Each of the three existing tests has
> different return value semantics, so it is not clear to me which one I should
> use.

Ah, sorry, I looked at one (don't remember which one) and assumed the
other ones followed the same convention.

> I didn't think it was correct for my probe function to use the ACPI_STATUS
> macro unless it returned ACPI error codes... which it does not.  -ENODEV seemed
> appropriate for "no device found".
> 
> Is it desirable to clean them all up to follow the same convention?

Ideally, yes, but that would be a separate task from what you're up to
at the moment. And anyway this is not in my realm an I am not going to
work on it myself, so my opinion probably doesn't matter that much.
Sorry for bothering you with this in the first place.

-- 
Jean Delvare