From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756355AbcKET2x (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 15:28:53 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49359 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755084AbcKET2t (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 15:28:49 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 12:30:22 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Lyude Cc: ibm-acpi-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Martin , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] thinkpad_acpi: Move tablet detection into separate function Message-ID: <20161105193022.GH100528@f23x64.localdomain> References: <201611010752.uqciUgvR%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <1477958200-23883-1-git-send-email-lyude@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1477958200-23883-1-git-send-email-lyude@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:56:40PM -0400, Lyude wrote: > Suggested by Daniel Martin > > Lenovo's having a bit of fun randomly changing what hotkey events and > acpi handles they use for reporting tablet mode, so unfortunately this > means we're definitely going to need to probe for multiple types of > tablet mode support. Since the hotkey_init() is already a lot larger > then it should be, let's split up this detection into it's own function > to make things a little easier to read. > > As well, since we're going to have multiple types of tablet modes, make > hotkey_tablet into an enum so we can also use it to indicate the type of > tablet mode reporting the machine supports. > > Changes since v1: > - Don't use bool for in_tablet_mode (fixes complaints from kbuild test > robot) > This series doesn't apply cleanly now (simple fuzz). Once we hear back from Henrique on his enum preference and thoughts on the refactoring (which looks reasonable to me), please resubmit this series and review Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the changelog (below ---) and please be consistent in your placement of "v2" in the subject [PATCH vX N/M] prefix. Most all of my feedback here is minor, but there were enough little things that added up and I'd like to see this resubmitted as a series with those addressed that applies cleanly - largely to make sure I haven't missed context and somehow merged the wrong bits. Thanks Lyude, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center