From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751605AbcFWBfH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:35:07 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:20063 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907AbcFWBfF (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:35:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,509,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="833553309" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI : Dummy acpi_video_register should return error code To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arvind Yadav References: <1466621761-7283-1-git-send-email-arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> <3183729.cNSdjc2YjN@vostro.rjw.lan> From: Aaron Lu Cc: robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:35:01 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3183729.cNSdjc2YjN@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/23/2016 05:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:26:01 AM Arvind Yadav wrote: >> The inline acpi_video_register stub simply allows compilation on systems >> with CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO disabled. the dummy acpi_video_register does not >> register an acpi_bus_driver at all. The inline acpi_video_register should >> return to indicate lack of support when attempting to register an >> acpi_bus_driver on such a system with CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO disabled. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav >> --- >> include/acpi/video.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/acpi/video.h b/include/acpi/video.h >> index 5731ccb..4536bd3 100644 >> --- a/include/acpi/video.h >> +++ b/include/acpi/video.h >> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ extern int acpi_video_get_levels(struct acpi_device *device, >> struct acpi_video_device_brightness **dev_br, >> int *pmax_level); >> #else >> -static inline int acpi_video_register(void) { return 0; } >> +static inline int acpi_video_register(void) { return -ENODEV; } >> static inline void acpi_video_unregister(void) { return; } >> static inline int acpi_video_get_edid(struct acpi_device *device, int type, >> int device_id, void **edid) > > Aaron, what do you think? The only place that cares about the return value of acpi_video_register is in acpi_video_init where CONFIG_ACPI_VIDEO must be defined, all other places do not care about the return value so this change shouldn't cause any problems and returning -ENODEV sounds more reasonable than 0 here. Reviewed-by: Aaron Lu Regards, Aaron