linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] i2c: core: Make i2c_acpi_get_irq available to the rest of the I2C core

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:59:50 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     wsa@...-dreams.de, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, jbroadus@...il.com,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] i2c: core: Make i2c_acpi_get_irq available to the
 rest of the I2C core

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 02:34:17PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> In preparation for more refactoring make i2c_acpi_get_irq available
> outside i2c-core-acpi.c.

> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>

I'm not sure Rb tags are suitable for patches 4 and 5 since the changes made.

> +struct acpi_device;

Hmm... Doesn't acpi.h define that for !ACPI case?

>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>  const struct acpi_device_id *
>  i2c_acpi_match_device(const struct acpi_device_id *matches,
>  		      struct i2c_client *client);
>  void i2c_acpi_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap);
> +
> +int i2c_acpi_get_irq(struct acpi_device *adev);

Since you call this afterwards with struct device from which companion is
derived, can't we directly use struct device as a parameter?

Yes, in case of adev call, it might be &adev->dev I suppose?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko