Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220808031132.10075-1-luke@ljones.dev> <20220808031132.10075-3-luke@ljones.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20220808031132.10075-3-luke@ljones.dev>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:52:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcjTG=fFBjjHRYT2+ARfE-VHWKJ9aV8sF4JtRVo7Ke2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] asus-wmi: Add support for ROG X13 tablet mode
To:     "Luke D. Jones" <luke@ljones.dev>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 5:12 AM Luke D. Jones <luke@ljones.dev> wrote:
>
> Add quirk for ASUS ROG X13 Flow 2-in-1 to enable tablet mode with
> lid flip (all screen rotations).

...

> -       { KE_KEY, 0xFA, { KEY_PROG2 } },           /* Lid flip action */
> +       { KE_KEY, 0xFA, { KEY_PROG2 } }, /* Lid flip action */

Have maintainers asked you about this? Otherwise it is irrelevant change.

...

> +                       pr_err("This device has lid-flip-rog quirk but got ENODEV checking it. This is a bug.");

dev_err() ?

...

> +                       pr_err("Error checking for lid-flip: %d\n", result);

Ditto.

...

> +static void lid_flip_rog_tablet_mode_get_state(struct asus_wmi *asus)
> +{
> +       int result = asus_wmi_get_devstate_simple(asus, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_LID_FLIP_ROG);
> +
> +       if (result >= 0) {

First of all, it's better to decouple assignment and definition, and
move assignment closer to its user. This is usual pattern.

   int result;

  result = ...
  if (result...)

> +               input_report_switch(asus->inputdev, SW_TABLET_MODE, result);
> +               input_sync(asus->inputdev);
> +       }

Second, it will look better with standard pattern of checking for errors, i.e.

  int result;

  if (result < 0)
    return;
  ...

> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko