[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANg-bXBdQP4OMzkpm_cgeiJOj176j=FdekvvyomZDVUGwe4M4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:56:55 -0700
From: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gpiolib: acpi: Modify acpi_dev_irq_wake_get_by to
use resource
> > + *r = (struct resource)DEFINE_RES_IRQ(irq);
>
> Why do you need "(struct resource)" annotation?
I don't. I originally started working on this patch on a kernel
version that didn't have 52c4d11f1dce ("resource: Convert
DEFINE_RES_NAMED() to be compound literal").
> > + struct resource irqres;
> > struct i2c_acpi_irq_context irq_ctx = {
> > .irq = -ENOENT,
> > };
>
> Hmm... I'm wondering if we can reuse irqres as a context to the respective
> lookup calls.
I'll see if I can safely remove it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists