[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ji3rR3HkC7BjygkqXxOrEn3qSKA42i1Rj9tBqZ71Dh+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:08:38 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ACPI: introduce acpi_table_parse2()
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:43:34PM +0300, Aleksey Makarov wrote:
>> The function acpi_table_parse() has some problems:
>> 1 It can be called only from __init code
>> 2 It does not pass any data to the handler
>> 3 It just throws out the value returned from the handler
>>
>> These issues are addressed in this patch
>
> Why not just fix acpi_table_parse(), like you have, and not add a new
> API call with a "2" at the end of it. That seems crazy to try to
> maintain that level of apis.
>
> But I'm not the acpi maintainer(s), so it's their call...
The ACPI maintainer agrees.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists