linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] ACPI: header: implement acpi_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z1lGPWHYTdfcxFPL@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:58:53 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] ACPI: header: implement acpi_device_handle when
 !ACPI

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:31:57PM +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 21:56, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 07:56:01PM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > Provide an implementation of acpi_device_handle that can be used when
> > > CONFIG_ACPI is not set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/acpi.h | 6 ++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > index 05f39fbfa485..59a5d110ff54 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > @@ -787,6 +787,12 @@ const char *acpi_get_subsystem_id(acpi_handle handle);
> > >  #define acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, hid2, uid2)     (adev && false)
> > >
> > >  struct fwnode_handle;
> > > +struct acpi_device;
> > > +
> > > +static inline acpi_handle acpi_device_handle(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > > +{
> > > +     return NULL;
> > > +}
> > >
> > >  static inline bool acpi_dev_found(const char *hid)
> > >  {
> > >
> >
> > Please remove the extra forward declaration of struct acpi_device a few
> > lines below this.
> 
> Instead I have moved the function under the forward declaration. Let
> me know if you disagree.

The same order in which the functions are found in the actual
implementation would be my suggestion. Rafael could also have an opinion.

-- 
Sakari Ailus