[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141024181656.GU1484@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:16:56 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Use ACPI companion to match only the first
physical device
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:57:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I didn't consider that it is even possible but yes, in that case we
> > should not return true here.
>
> Well, that why did you check if the list is not empty at all? :-)
>
> It is possible if someone sets the ACPI companion before calling acpi_bind_one()
> (some pieces of code do that). It may not be relevant here, but it won't hurt
> to be on the safe side.
Agreed.
> > >
> > > > + mutex_lock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
> > > > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
> > > > + const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
> > > > +
> > > > + node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
> > > > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
> > > > + if (node->dev != dev)
> > > > + ret = false;
> > >
> > > And that may be simply
> > >
> > > ret = node->dev == dev;
> >
> > OK.
>
> So what about the following modified version?
Looks good to me, thanks :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists