On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 5:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:04 PM Mario Limonciello > <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 8/18/2023 05:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:31:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 7:15 AM Mario Limonciello > > >> <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > >>> +int acpi_get_lps0_constraint(struct device *dev) > > >> > > >> I think that some overhead would be reduced below if this were taking > > >> a struct acpi_device pointer as the argument. Besides, I don't think that the constraints should be checked directly from pci_bridge_d3_possible(). I'd rather check them from acpi_pci_bridge_d3() which knows the ACPI companion of the given device already and can use it directly.
