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: <aFpVX05xv4j4uRiP@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 10:35:59 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...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 10:25:59AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 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".

In some [rare] cases this might lead to removing acpi.h which is a monsteur
that slows down a build and provokes developer to avoid IWYU principle from
enforcement.

> > 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.

In this perhaps, but my point is that any of such amendments will be applied in
one place for all, while open coding prevents this.

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

I think there is an improvement.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko