On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:12:22AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Sorry for the delay. > > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:54:46 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Currently they return -1 on error, which will confuse callers if > > they try to interpret it as a normal negative error code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > Changes from v3: > > You mean from v2... > > > - Split out from the series it was in. > > - Use -ENXIO for "there's no DMI". > > - Also fix docs and !DMI case. > > > > Changes from v2: > > ... and from v1. > > > - Total rewrite. > > > > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 9 +++++---- > > include/linux/dmi.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > index 0e08e665f715..0418fed261bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int __init dmi_walk_early(void (*decode)(const > > struct dmi_header *, > > > > buf = dmi_early_remap(dmi_base, orig_dmi_len); > > if (buf == NULL) > > - return -1; > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > dmi_decode_table(buf, decode, NULL); > > > > @@ -970,7 +970,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmi_get_date); > > * @decode: Callback function > > * @private_data: Private data to be passed to the callback function > > * > > - * Returns -1 when the DMI table can't be reached, 0 on success. > > + * Returns 0 on success, -ENXIO if DMI is not selected or not present, > > + * or a different negative error code if DMI walking fails. > > Returning an error from DMI walking isn't yet implemented so this is > confusing. If it ever is, most likely it will be implemented as a > separate function. Or were you only referring to the -ENOMEM case below? > > > */ > > int dmi_walk(void (*decode)(const struct dmi_header *, void *), > > void *private_data) > > @@ -978,11 +979,11 @@ int dmi_walk(void (*decode)(const struct dmi_header > > *, void *), > > u8 *buf; > > > > if (!dmi_available) > > - return -1; > > + return -ENOENT; > > Should be -ENXIO as documented above? Not that I really understand how > "No such device or address" is going to be a helpful error message for > the user. What's wrong with -ENOTSUP I suggested earlier? >
Andy, If I understand this correctly, this is the first of 5 patches, and this one has some unanswered questions from Jean here. If this patch gets respun, the following are also impacted: dell-wmi: Stop storing pointers to DMI tables dell-wmi, dell-laptop: select DMI dell-wmi: Clean up hotkey table size check dell-wmi: Support new hotkeys on the XPS 13 9350 (Skylake) Is that correct? If so, please close on this patch with Jean, and resend the series of 5 together and be sure to include me on Cc. Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center
