On 7/26/06, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is not a complaint about the driver but more a generic question - how valid is it to mix error values from 2 different sets? I mean input_register_device signals standard -EXXXX while acpi_install_address_space_handler signals ACPI-specific error codes, so result is some kind of monster error ;) ACPI' acpi_op_add defines return value siimply as int which leads me to believe that -EXXXX is more suitable here.
You are right. There is an issue to be fixed there.
Overall it is unfortunate that ACPI has its own set of errors and that they "seep" through to upper layers.
Agreed. Here's what I see for example: in atlas_acpi_button_remove, I have to call acpi_remove_address_space_handler which could return at least: AE_BAD_PARAMETER AE_NOT_EXIST I guess I could at least convert those into -EINVAL, -ENODEV. But maybe it's better if there was a best effort convert_acpi_to_errno function? Is that appropriate? Thanks, jaya - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
