[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzvrVoJ3BBhZmaZT@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:14:14 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] device property: Keep dev_fwnode() and
dev_fwnode_const() separate
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:55:21AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:08:58PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 06:17:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
...
> > #define kobj_to_dev(kobj) \
> > (_Generic((kobj), \
> > const struct kobject *: __kobj_to_dev_const, \
> > struct kobject *: __kobj_to_dev)(kobj))
>
> Ah, doh! I had the (kobj) part in the wrong place, thanks for that
> fix...
>
> Ok, this looks better, let me see how well the build breaks with some of
> these changes
I believe I can rewrite my patch like this and then it will be much nicer since
we may constify all the rest without calling __dev_fwnode_const() directly.
Are you agree?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists