Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] toshiba_acpi: Remove "*not supported" feature prints

[Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:15:13PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> Hi Darren,
> 
> 2015-08-05 3:38 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:58:13PM -0600, Azael Avalos wrote:
> >> Currently the driver prints "*not supported" if any of the features
> >> queried are in fact not supported, let us print the available
> >> features instead.
> >>
> >> This patch removes all instances pr_info printing "*not supported",
> >> and add a new function called "print_supported_features", which will
> >> print the available laptop features.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Azael Avalos <coproscefalo@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> >> index d983dc4..66b596a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
> >> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ static void toshiba_illumination_available(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev)
> >>       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >>               pr_err("ACPI call to query Illumination support failed\n");
> >>       else if (out[0] == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED)
> >> -             pr_info("Illumination device not available\n");
> >> +             return;
> >>       else if (out[0] == TOS_SUCCESS)
> >>               dev->illumination_supported = 1;
> >>  }
> >> @@ -483,7 +483,6 @@ static void toshiba_illumination_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> >>               pr_err("ACPI call for illumination failed\n");
> >>               return;
> >>       } else if (result == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) {
> >> -             pr_info("Illumination not supported\n");
> >>               return;
> >>       }
> >
> > I mentioned this in the previous review. For several of these, we have an if
> > statement that checks for a condition, and then returns, which is exactly what
> > would happen if we didn't have the if statement at all.
> >
> > If the context is important, a comment should be sufficient. Is there a
> > compelling reason to add the redundant check?
> 
> The "offending" lines are removed by patch 04, that's why I didn't included
> a comment or removed the lines on this patch, as I was trying to "abstract"
> what each patch do, which in this patch, only removes the pr_info.

Apologies, I missed that. OK, we're good on this one.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center