[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Md6nseghBwfiRCL0KQ1BJ0WE7MH9QENf=HdJdnC1Xz1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:23:27 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@...wei.com>
Cc: mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] gpiolib: acpi: Use METHOD_NAME__AEI macro for acpi_walk_resources
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> return;
>
> - acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
> + acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
> acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);
This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag?
That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly).
Bart
>
> mutex_lock(&acpi_gpio_deferred_req_irqs_lock);
> --
> 2.22.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists