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

[Azael Avalos]

Hi Darren,

2015-08-05 3:38 GMT-06:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  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.

>
> --
> Darren Hart
> Intel Open Source Technology Center


Cheers
Azael


-- 
-- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien --
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/