[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aGUaaOQaya-SaasR@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:39:20 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
Rahul Pathak <rpathak@...tanamicro.com>,
Leyfoon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 02:37:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:16 AM Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
...
> > > static int acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > const char *propname, const char *nargs_prop,
> > > unsigned int args_count, unsigned int index,
>
> > > const struct acpi_device_data *data;
> > > struct fwnode_handle *ref_fwnode;
> > > struct acpi_device *device;
> > > + unsigned int nargs_count;
> > > int ret, idx = 0;
>
> > > + nargs_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> >
> > I think it should work the same way as it used to for the callers that
> > pass args_count, so maybe
> >
> > if (!args_count)
> > args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
>
> But this is different variable.
>
> > > element++;
> > > -
> > > ret = acpi_get_ref_args(idx == index ? args : NULL,
> > > acpi_fwnode_handle(device),
> > > - &element, end, args_count);
> > > + &element, end,
> > > + nargs_count ? nargs_count : args_count);
> >
> > And this change would not be necessary?
>
> This is not the same check as proposed above.
> But this can be made shorter with Elvis in use:
>
> &element, end, nargs_count ?: args_count);
>
> > And analogously below.
>
> And below. And in case if there is a new proposal to have
>
> if (!nargs_count)
I meant
if (!nargs_prop)
here of course.
> args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
>
> that is exactly what I asked to drop as it's included in the
> acpi_fwnode_get_args_count() already, i.e. no need to check this in
> the caller and in the callee.
>
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > return ret;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists