On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 08:01:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 7:44 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 07:00:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Replace acpi_bus_get_device() that is going to be dropped with > > > acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(). > > > > > > No intentional functional impact. > > > > ... > > > > > + if (!adev || i2c_acpi_get_info(adev, &info, adapter, NULL)) > > > > AFAICS the !adev check is redundant since acpi_device_enumerated() does it. > > No. > > acpi_device_enumerated() returns false if adev is NULL, so without > this extra check i2c_acpi_get_info() will end up passing NULL to > i2c_acpi_do_lookup(). I see now. The patch LGTM, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > return AE_OK; > > > > ... > > > > > + struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle); > > > > > > - if (i2c_acpi_do_lookup(adev, lookup)) > > > + if (!adev || i2c_acpi_do_lookup(adev, lookup)) > > > return AE_OK; > > > > Here we need it indeed. > > Dunno, if acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() can gain the check itself. > > Well, acpi_bus_get_status() would need it too. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
