[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1458783966.1762.6.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:46:06 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc: Lv Zheng <zetalog@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/30] ACPICA: Linuxize: reduce divergences for 20160212
release
On Thu, 2016-03-24 at 09:38 +0800, Lv Zheng wrote:
> The patch reduces source code differences between the Linux kernel and the
> ACPICA upstream so that the linuxized ACPICA 20160212 release can be
> applied with reduced human intervention.
In the very first patch fragment:
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwregs.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwregs.c
[]
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ acpi_hw_validate_register(struct acpi_generic_address *reg,
> *
> ******************************************************************************/
>
> -acpi_status acpi_hw_read(u32 *value, struct acpi_generic_address *reg)
> +acpi_status acpi_hw_read(u32 *value, struct acpi_generic_address * reg)
The second argument * style appears the opposite of normal style
and a different style than the first argument * style.
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
[]
> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ static char acpi_os_name[ACPI_MAX_OVERRIDE_LEN];
>
> acpi_status
> acpi_os_predefined_override(const struct acpi_predefined_names *init_val,
> - char **new_val)
> + acpi_string *new_val)
And here:
acpi_string pointer style 1:
> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h b/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h
[]
> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ acpi_physical_address acpi_os_get_root_pointer(void);
> #ifndef ACPI_USE_ALTERNATE_PROTOTYPE_acpi_os_predefined_override
> acpi_status
> acpi_os_predefined_override(const struct acpi_predefined_names *init_val,
> - char **new_val);
> + acpi_string * new_val);
acpi_string pointer style 2:
There are varying styles for acpi_string *
So far, this just looks sloppy.
Should the rest be reviewed?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists