On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:31:57PM +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 21:56, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 07:56:01PM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > Provide an implementation of acpi_device_handle that can be used when
> > > CONFIG_ACPI is not set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/acpi.h | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > index 05f39fbfa485..59a5d110ff54 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> > > @@ -787,6 +787,12 @@ const char *acpi_get_subsystem_id(acpi_handle handle);
> > > #define acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, hid2, uid2) (adev && false)
> > >
> > > struct fwnode_handle;
> > > +struct acpi_device;
> > > +
> > > +static inline acpi_handle acpi_device_handle(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > > +{
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +}
> > >
> > > static inline bool acpi_dev_found(const char *hid)
> > > {
> > >
> >
> > Please remove the extra forward declaration of struct acpi_device a few
> > lines below this.
>
> Instead I have moved the function under the forward declaration. Let
> me know if you disagree.
The same order in which the functions are found in the actual
implementation would be my suggestion. Rafael could also have an opinion.
--
Sakari Ailus
