Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: merge set_lcd_level_alt() into set_lcd_level()

[Jonathan Woithe]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:49:02AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c 
> b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> index 59107a599d22..2f563aa00592 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> @@ -360,41 +360,26 @@ static int set_lcd_level(int level)
>  {
>       acpi_status status = AE_OK;
>       acpi_handle handle = NULL;
> -
> -     vdbg_printk(FUJLAPTOP_DBG_TRACE, "set lcd level via SBLL [%d]\n",
> -                 level);
> -
> -     if (level < 0 || level >= fujitsu_bl->max_brightness)
> -             return -EINVAL;
> -
> -     status = acpi_get_handle(fujitsu_bl->acpi_handle, "SBLL", &handle);
> -     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> -             vdbg_printk(FUJLAPTOP_DBG_ERROR, "SBLL not present\n");
> -             return -ENODEV;
> +     char *method;
> +
> +     switch (use_alt_lcd_levels) {
> +     case 1:
> +             method = "SBL2";
> +             break;
> +     default:
> +             method = "SBLL";
> +             break;
>       }

This is not necessary something actionable, but I am wondering about the
rationale of using a switch statement here given that there really are only
two options.  In my mind at least a simple "if" clause would be clearer and
easier to read (with or without the braces):

  if (use_alt_lcd_levels) {
          method = "SBL2";
  } else {
          method = "SBLL";
  }

Regards
  jonathan