On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 13:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Sometimes the user want to have device name of the match rather than >> > just checking if device present or not. >> >> I would give an example here. > > You mean to mention what is in patch 2? > I can do that. > > "Subset of Intel ASoC drivers is an existing user of this API when they > need to find an actual instance of the codec device based on its ACPI > HID." And why do they need the name (and not something else)? >> > To make life easier for such >> > users introduce acpi_dev_get_dev_name() >> >> What about acpi_dev_get_match_name() or just acpi_dev_match_name()? > > It's "get", not "match". OK > So, acpi_dev_get_name() then? It would be somewhat clearer to call it acpi_dev_get_first_match_name() IMO. Otherwise it may not be clear what name this is going to return. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
