On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 05:28:56PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 05:17:12PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Or perhaps something like,
> >
> > bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const void *uid2, enum uid_type type)
> > {
> > u64 uid1_d, uid2_d;
> >
> > if (type == UID_TYPE_STR) {
> > char *uid2_s = (char *)uid2;
> > if (!(uid2_s && !kstrtou64(uid2_s, 0, &uid2_d)))
> > return false;
> > } else if (type == UID_TYPE_INT) {
> > u64 *uid2_p;
> > uid2_p = (u64 *)uid2;
> > uid2_d = *uid2_p;
> > } else {
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > if (!acpi_dev_uid_to_integer(adev, &uid1_d) && uid1_d == uid2_d)
> > return true;
> > else
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > Although this looks unnecessarily hideous.
>
> Indeed, but using the _Generic() you should be able to have
> a single acpi_dev_uid_match() to work for either type so:
>
> acpi_dev_uid_match(adev, "1")
>
> and
>
> acpi_dev_uid_match(adev, 1)
>
> would both work with type checkings etc.
>
> Not sure if this is worth the trouble though.
Well, in that case we can probably try both and hope for the best ;)
bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2)
{
const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev);
u64 uid1_d;
return uid1 && uid2 && (!strcmp(uid1, uid2) ||
(!kstrtou64(uid1, 0, &uid1_d) && uid1_d == (u64)uid2));
}
But I'm guessing the compiler wouldn't be very happy about this.
Raag
