On 21 June 2016 13:27, Adam Thomson wrote:
> > > > > > +static inline bool acpi_data_node_match(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > > > > + const char *name)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + return is_acpi_data_node(fwnode) ?
> > > > > > + (!strcasecmp(to_acpi_data_node(fwnode)->name, name)) :
> > false;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks fine to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > One question - is it expected that matching ACPI data nodes is always
> > > > > case insensitive?
> > > >
> > > > That would not be a correct expectation in theory, although I don't think it
> > > > really matters in practice.
> > >
> > > From my reading of the Hierarchical Data Extension and ACPI Spec, I thought
> > > that was the case (section 19.3.1 ASL Names - ASL names are not case-sensitive
> > > and will be converted to upper case). Am I misreading the documents/missing
> > > something else?
> >
> > Those are names in the ASL code itself.
> >
> > What we are talking here are actually just string values (name of the
> > data node).
>
> Understood. For DT they are case insensitive (except for Sparc platforms) so
> having ACPI match seems to make sense. I can add a comment indicating this,
> just for clarity.
Actually, I'm going to back-track. Having seen the following discussion thread
on node name matching, it would seem the expected behaviour is that names should
be case sensitive for DT:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg130870.html
Will follow that lead, and do the same for ACPI.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
