[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130181407.GV4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:14:07 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, bgolaszewski@...libre.com,
wsa@...nel.org, yong.zhi@...el.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
bingbu.cao@...el.com, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, kitakar@...il.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing
software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:09:55PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:24PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
I agree with most of Laurent's comments. S
...
> > + Say Y here if your device is a detachable / hybrid laptop that comes
> > + with Windows installed by the OEM, for example:
> > +
> > + - Microsoft Surface models (except Surface Pro 3)
In this line mixed TABs and spaces. Not sure if it's only in Laurent's reply.
> > + - The Lenovo Miix line (for example the 510, 520, 710 and 720)
> > + - Dell 7285
...
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cio2_supported_devices); i++) {
> > + const char *this_device = cio2_supported_devices[i];
>
> s/this_device/name/ (or sensor_name, ...) ?
I would go with hid.
...
> > + for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, this_device, NULL, -1) {
> > + if (!adev || !(adev->status.present && adev->status.enabled))
>
> if (!adev || !adev->status.present || !adev->status.enabled))
>
> may be a bit more readable. Does for_each_acpi_dev_match() return NULL
> devices though ? If no, you could drop the !adev check. You may also be
> able to drop the !present check, as I don't think ACPI allows !present
> && enabled.
I think this should be rather
if (acpi_bus_get_status(adev) || !adev->status.present)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists