[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yf7FrU3z7jgyv04f@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 20:45:01 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Drop wrong use of
ACPI_PTR()
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:45:35PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:59:18 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > ACPI_PTR() is more harmful than helpful. For example, in this case
> > if CONFIG_ACPI=n, the ID table left unused which is not what we want.
> >
> > Instead of adding ifdeffery or attribute here and there, drop ACPI_PTR().
> >
> > Fixes: 3b3870646642 ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Mark acpi match table as maybe unused")
> > Fixes: fd64df16f40e ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Add SPI support for MPU6000")
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Whilst I fully support tidying this up, what is 'fixing' as such?
> Will get rid of an unused warning for the spi case but that sort
> of things doesn't always get fixes tags.
True, however I can find a handful examples when this kind of patches were backported.
> They tend to result
> in backports and I wouldn't think it was worth backporting this
> unless I'm missing something...
It's not critical, so can you drop the tags when applying, if you think that's
okay?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists