Message ID | 2828957.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | ACPI: scan: Introduce a replacement for acpi_bus_get_device() | expand |
Hi, On 12/3/21 17:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > Because acpi_bus_get_device() turned out to be problematic in the past, it has > been changed to the point that its calling convention doesn't make much sense > any more (ie. the pointer passed to it as the second argument is cleared on > errors and it can only return one error value if that pointer is nonzero, so > there is some duplication of information in there) and it has to make redundant > checks. > > Moreover, its name suggests some kind of reference counting which really isn't > the case. > > Thus patch [1/2] introduces a replacement for it, called acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(), > and makes the code in scan.c use it instead of acpi_bus_get_device() internally. > > Patch [2/2] updates all of the callers of acpi_bus_get_device() within the ACPI > subsystem to use the replacement (which involves fixing a couple of bugs related > to that). Thanks, the series looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> for the series. Regards, Hans
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 05:34:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi All, > > Because acpi_bus_get_device() turned out to be problematic in the past, it has > been changed to the point that its calling convention doesn't make much sense > any more (ie. the pointer passed to it as the second argument is cleared on > errors and it can only return one error value if that pointer is nonzero, so > there is some duplication of information in there) and it has to make redundant > checks. > > Moreover, its name suggests some kind of reference counting which really isn't > the case. > > Thus patch [1/2] introduces a replacement for it, called acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(), > and makes the code in scan.c use it instead of acpi_bus_get_device() internally. > > Patch [2/2] updates all of the callers of acpi_bus_get_device() within the ACPI > subsystem to use the replacement (which involves fixing a couple of bugs related > to that). Makes perfect sense! For the series, Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>