Re: [PATCH 0/4] fujitsu-laptop: acpi_fujitsu_hotkey_notify() cleanup

From: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
To: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@just42.net>
Cc: Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@kempniu.pl>,
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fujitsu-laptop: acpi_fujitsu_hotkey_notify() cleanup
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:09:45 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170113220945.GB4165@wisp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170111124813.GH17476@marvin.atrad.com.au>

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:18:13PM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:26:49PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:59:29AM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > > I am currently preparing a patch series which makes fujitsu-laptop use a
> > > > sparse keymap for hotkey handling.  Before that will happen, though,
> > > > acpi_fujitsu_hotkey_notify() could use a revamp because it is pretty
> > > > hard to read as it is.  To avoid posting everything at once, here are a
> > > > few patches which IMHO make that function easier to read.  Some of these
> > > > changes might be a matter of taste, so feel free to NACK them or suggest
> > > > a preferred alternative.
> > > 
> > > This patch series provides a significant clean up to the functions it
> > > focuses on.  As such I have no real objections to them.  However, because my
> > > Fujitsu laptop doesn't have any of the hotkeys of later models I am unable
> > > to test these patches with real hardware.  Have you been able to do so?  If
> > > they have been verified I have no problem acking these.  Otherwise I will
> > > have to do as much as I can (given no access to relevant hardware) to ensure
> > > the overall behaviour isn't changed.
> > 
> > I tested these on a Lifebook E744, which is capable of generating
> > KEY4_CODE ("ECO on/off button") and KEY5_CODE ("Wireless/Bluetooth
> > on/off button").  I checked that these hotkeys still work fine with this
> > patch series applied.  By temporarily reversing some logical conditions,
> > I also did my best to ensure that unexpected behaviors (unknown ACPI
> > event code, kfifo failures) are still handled in the same way as
> > previously (apart from the "Push keycode into ringbuffer" debug message,
> > which is now only printed upon a successful push due to the last patch).
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.  It may be worth adding a comment to the effect that
> the patches were tested on a Lifebook E744.  That aside, I'm happy with
> these clean ups.
> 
> Acked-by: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@just42.net>

Queued to testing, thanks!

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center