| Message ID | 20230123134617.265382-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI _CRS CSI-2 and MIPI DisCo for Imaging support | expand |
Hi Andy, On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 04:51:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 03:46:10PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Add support for parsing property references using strings, besides > > reference objects that were previously supported. This allows also > > referencing data nodes which was not possible with reference objects. > > > > Also add pr_fmt() macro to prefix printouts. > > > > While at it, update copyright. > > ... > > > - * Copyright (C) 2014, Intel Corporation > > + * Copyright (C) 2014--2023, Intel Corporation > > Isn't one dash enough? > > $ git grep -n 'opyright.*[0-9]--[0-9]' | wc -l > 37 > > $ git grep -n 'opyright.*[0-9]-[0-9]' | wc -l > 15064 This is a range, not hyphenation. There's no different character in the ASCII character set for the former, commonly two regular dashes are used. There probably would be a correct Unicode character though. > > > > * All rights reserved. > > * > > * Authors: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > * Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > + * Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> > > Seems wrong indentation in comparison to the others. Tabs are preferred for intendation. I can change all the lines to use tab. How about that? > > > */ > > ... > > > +static struct fwnode_handle * > > +acpi_parse_string_ref(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, const char *refstring) > > +{ > > + acpi_handle scope, handle; > > + struct acpi_data_node *dn; > > + struct acpi_device *device; > > + acpi_status status; > > + > > + if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) { > > > + scope = to_acpi_device_node(fwnode)->handle; > > Interestingly that we have a helper for this -- ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE()... > > > + } else if (is_acpi_data_node(fwnode)) { > > > + scope = to_acpi_data_node(fwnode)->handle; > > ...but not for this. I'd either prefer to keep them as-is, as it's easy to see what's being done there, or add a new macro --- or a function to do this. Say, acpi_fwnode_acpi_handle(), as this is clearly ACPI specific and to differentiate between ACPI handles and fwnode handles. ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE()'s name suggests it would do something else than it does, if you consider the current fwnode API.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Add SOFTWARE_NODE() macro in order to make defining software nodes look > nicer. This is analogous to different PROPERTY_ENTRY_*() macros for > defining properties. > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> > --- > include/linux/property.h | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h > index 37179e3abad5c..6745a86bc9b97 100644 > --- a/include/linux/property.h > +++ b/include/linux/property.h > @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@ struct software_node { > const struct property_entry *properties; > }; > > +#define SOFTWARE_NODE(_name_, _properties_, _parent_) \ > + (struct software_node) { \ > + .name = _name_, \ > + .properties = _properties_, \ > + .parent = _parent_, \ > + } > + > bool is_software_node(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > const struct software_node * > to_software_node(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > -- > 2.30.2