linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] i2c: acpi: Replace custom code with device_match_acpi

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: <20250624072559.GB2824380@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:25:59 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Randolph Ha <rha051117@...il.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <westeri@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] i2c: acpi: Replace custom code with
 device_match_acpi_handle()

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:19:02AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:45:08AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 04:45:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Since driver core provides a generic device_match_acpi_handle()
> > > we may replace the custom code with it.
> > 
> > Well okay but now you replace a simple comparison with a function call. I'm
> > fine with the patch but I also don't think this is an improvement ;-)
> 
> The improvement is in using standard API for such cases.

Well ACPI_HANDLE() and comparing handles is also a "standard API".

> You may argue on many things that may be open coded in
> the kernel while we have helpers (in some cases exported)
> functions that are one-liners or so. Note, the helper also
> performs an additional check and having an open coded copy
> may miss such a change. To me it's an improvement.

Which is unnecessary check in this case.

But like I said, no objections. I just don't think this improves anything.