On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 10:33 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/7/24 20:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 9:29 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart
> > <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> The ACPI _ADR is a 64-bit value. We changed the definitions in commit
> >> ca6f998cf9a2 ("ACPI: bus: change _ADR representation to 64 bits") but
> >> some helpers still assume the value is a 32-bit value.
> >>
> >> This patch adds a new helper to extract the full 64-bits. The existing
> >> 32-bit helper is kept for backwards-compatibility and cases where the
> >> _ADR is known to fit in a 32-bit value.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Do you want me to apply this or do you want me to route it along with
> > the rest of the series?
> >
> > In the latter case feel free to add
> >
> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks Rafael. I think it's easier if Mark Brown takes the series in
> ASoC, I have additional ASoC patches that use the u64 helper.
>
> Mark?
>
>
> >>
> >> +int acpi_get_local_u64_address(acpi_handle handle, u64 *addr)
> >> +{
> >> + acpi_status status;
> >> +
> >> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, METHOD_NAME__ADR, NULL, addr);
> >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >> + return -ENODATA;
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_get_local_u64_address);
> >
> > I'd prefer EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() here unless you absolutely cannot live with it.
>
> I don't mind, but the existing helper was using EXPORT_SYMBOL so I just
> copied. It'd be odd to have two helpers that only differ by the argument
> size use a different EXPORT_ macro, no? Not to mention that the
> get_local address uses EXPORT_SYMBOL but would become a wrapper for an
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. That gives me a headache...
OK, fair enough.
