From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= Subject: Re: Patch for thinkpad-acpi.c Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87r4gr9z5o.fsf@nemi.mork.no> References: <51A47773.4080701@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from canardo.mork.no ([148.122.252.1]:45399 "EHLO canardo.mork.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755617Ab3E1K2i convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2013 06:28:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51A47773.4080701@canonical.com> (Bruce's message of "Tue, 28 May 2013 17:22:59 +0800") Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Bruce Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bruce writes: > +struct blacklist lenovo_blacklist[] =3D { > + { > + .model_s =3D "Lenovo LM490s", > + .nummodel_s =3D "814YG01", > + }, The driver already has a list of LED support per model in the=20 static const struct tpacpi_quirk led_useful_qtable[] __initconst =3D = {} array. Why do you duplicate this with lots of new model checking code instead of just using the code that's already there? > static void led_exit(void) > { > + if (no_led =3D=3D 1 ) { The driver already has provisions for signalling that LEDs are unsupported through the 'led_supported' variable. Why do you add another variable, and duplicate testing in every access function? But I don't think this part is needed at all, as long as you set up the proper LED map in led_useful_qtable. Bj=C3=B8rn