[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <615bad5e-6e68-43c9-dd0b-f26d2832d52f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 13:36:29 +0000
From: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>, me@...wu.ch,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...ica.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ACPI: scan: Extend acpi_walk_dep_device_list()
Hi Andy
On 22/02/2021 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com> wrote:
>> The acpi_walk_dep_device_list() is not as generalisable as its name
>> implies, serving only to decrement the dependency count for each
>> dependent device of the input. Extend the function to instead accept
>> a callback which can be applied to all the dependencies in acpi_dep_list.
>> Replace all existing calls to the function with calls to a wrapper, passing
>> a callback that applies the same dependency reduction.
> The code looks okay to me, if it was the initial idea, feel free to add
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Thank you!
>> + */
>> +void acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met(acpi_handle handle)
>> +{
> Since it's acpi_dev_* namespace, perhaps it should take struct acpi_device here?
I can do this, but I avoided it because in most of the uses in the
kernel currently there's no struct acpi_device, they're just passing
ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead, so I'd need to get the adev with
ACPI_COMPANION() in each place. It didn't seem worth it...but happy to
do it if you'd prefer it that way?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists