From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mattia Dongili Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] sony-laptop: keyboard backlight support extended to newer Vaios Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:24:45 +0900 Message-ID: <20110612222444.GC31095@kamineko.org> References: <4DE8FC4A.9010401@absence.it> <4DE9008D.7040504@absence.it> <20110604075815.GA7194@kamineko.org> <4DF20EB6.2080803@absence.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:45801 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753779Ab1FLWYr (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:24:47 -0400 Received: by pzk9 with SMTP id 9so1885701pzk.19 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DF20EB6.2080803@absence.it> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marco Chiappero Cc: Matthew Garrett , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 02:31:50PM +0200, Marco Chiappero wrote: > Il 04/06/2011 09:58, Mattia Dongili ha scritto: > > >> struct kbd_backlight { > >>- int mode; > >>- int timeout; > >>+ unsigned int base; > >>+ unsigned int mode; > >>+ unsigned int timeout; > >> struct device_attribute mode_attr; > >> struct device_attribute timeout_attr; > >> }; > >>- > >> static struct kbd_backlight *kbdbl_handle; > >>+static int sony_kbd_handle = -1; > > > >there seems to be no real point initializing this to -1. Also, can it be > >made part of the struct above? > > I'm including these two changes in every patch that provides a new > capability using different handles. > I need some more time to prepare the new patches, but before > resending I'd like to hear some more feedbacks: removing any acpi > notification in patch #8, do patches from 1 to 9 look fine? Is it > possible to merge them, as they are, as soon as I repost them? If potentially, if they seem safe yes. I'd rather review what you have than a stale version that you're already changing so please send the patches over and then we'll see. > some changes are required please let me know. I've also posted a > patch fixing the "0x0" handle issue ("fix potential improper handle > usage"), I suppose it to be okay, can I include it in my original > source file before creating the patches? Or should I include that > patch in the patchset instead? either way, that patch is not compulsory for any of the functionalities you posted. -- mattia :wq!