ACK: [PATCH] fwts_acpi_object_eval: revise fwts_method_test_passed_failed_return

[ivanhu]

On 5/20/20 6:52 AM, Alex Hung wrote:
> Some ACPI methods use 0/1 as pass/fail, some use 1/0 as pass/fail, and
> some others just return 0 or 1.
> 
> Revise error messages without specifying which pair since users can look
> up correct definitions in ACPI spec.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
> ---
>  src/lib/src/fwts_acpi_object_eval.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/lib/src/fwts_acpi_object_eval.c b/src/lib/src/fwts_acpi_object_eval.c
> index d72aa460..2547f134 100644
> --- a/src/lib/src/fwts_acpi_object_eval.c
> +++ b/src/lib/src/fwts_acpi_object_eval.c
> @@ -949,11 +949,11 @@ void fwts_method_test_passed_failed_return(
>  		else {
>  			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL,
>  				"MethodReturnZeroOrOne",
> -				"%s returned 0x%8.8" PRIx32 ", should return 1 "
> -				"(success) or 0 (failed).", method, val);
> +				"%s returned 0x%8.8" PRIx32 ", should return 0 "
> +				"or 1.", method, val);
>  			fwts_advice(fw,
>  				"Method %s should be returning the correct "
> -				"1/0 success/failed return values. "
> +				"0 or 1 return values. "
>  				"Unexpected behaviour may occur becauses of "
>  				"this error, the AML code does not conform to "
>  				"the ACPI specification and should be fixed.",
> 

Acked-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu at canonical.com>