linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] acpi: Add acpi_dev_get_next_match

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]

Message-ID: <589d7078-60e6-ae2b-dbb2-bbe5b8ef7775@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:57:34 +0000
From:   Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
        yong.zhi@...el.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
        bingbu.cao@...el.com, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com,
        robert.moore@...el.com, erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, m.felsch@...gutronix.de,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, slongerbeam@...il.com,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] acpi: Add acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev() and
 helper macro

On 04/01/2021 12:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 11:12:33PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
>> To ensure we handle situations in which multiple sensors of the same
>> model (and therefore _HID) are present in a system, we need to be able
>> to iterate over devices matching a known _HID but unknown _UID and _HRV
>>  - add acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev() to accommodate that possibility and
>> change acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev() to simply call the new function
>> with a NULL starting point. Add an iterator macro for convenience.
> I guess we need Rafael's blessing on this.
For this one yes