[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6dcb0cc-ff6a-3b71-55a2-d965cd8a290c@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:53:30 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: scan: Rearrange code related to
acpi_get_device_data()
Hi,
On 1/18/21 8:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> There are two callers of acpi_get_device_data(), acpi_bus_get_device()
> and acpi_bus_get_acpi_device(), but only one of them takes the int
> return value into account. Moreover, the latter knows that it passes
> a valid return pointer to acpi_get_device_data() and it properly
> clears that pointer upfront, so it doesn't need acpi_get_device_data()
> to do that.
>
> For this reason, rearrange acpi_get_device_data() to return a strct
> acpi_device pointer instead of an int and adapt its callers to that.
>
> While at it, rename acpi_get_device_data() to handle_to_device(),
> because the old name does not really reflect the functionality
> provided by that function.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Nice cleanup, patch looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Regards,
Hans
> ---
>
> On top of https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/20210115215752.389656-1-hdegoede@redhat.com/
>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -578,29 +578,31 @@ static void acpi_scan_drop_device(acpi_h
> mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> }
>
> -static int acpi_get_device_data(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device **device,
> - void (*callback)(void *))
> +static struct acpi_device *handle_to_device(acpi_handle handle,
> + void (*callback)(void *))
> {
> + struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> acpi_status status;
>
> - if (!device)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - *device = NULL;
> -
> status = acpi_get_data_full(handle, acpi_scan_drop_device,
> - (void **)device, callback);
> - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !*device) {
> - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "No context for object [%p]\n",
> - handle));
> - return -ENODEV;
> + (void **)&adev, callback);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !adev) {
> + acpi_handle_debug(handle, "No context!\n");
> + return NULL;
> }
> - return 0;
> + return adev;
> }
>
> int acpi_bus_get_device(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device **device)
> {
> - return acpi_get_device_data(handle, device, NULL);
> + if (!device)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + *device = handle_to_device(handle, NULL);
> + if (!*device)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_bus_get_device);
>
> @@ -612,10 +614,7 @@ static void get_acpi_device(void *dev)
>
> struct acpi_device *acpi_bus_get_acpi_device(acpi_handle handle)
> {
> - struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> -
> - acpi_get_device_data(handle, &adev, get_acpi_device);
> - return adev;
> + return handle_to_device(handle, get_acpi_device);
> }
>
> void acpi_bus_put_acpi_device(struct acpi_device *adev)
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists