On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:39 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > The is_acpi_data_node() function takes a struct fwnode_handle > > pointer > > as > > its argument. The validity of the pointer is first checked. Extend > > the > > check to cover error values as is done by similar is_acpi_node() and > > is_acpi_device_node() functions. > > > > > It seems we will have three places with such code. Do we care to get > rid > of them in favor of is_acpi_data_node()? (I didn't read whole series > yet, maybe it's already done) Please, ignore this comment, I messed up with FWNODE_ACPI type. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
