On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:20:41PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static bool acpi_companion_match(const struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev;
> > + bool ret;
> > +
> > + adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> > + if (!adev)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (list_empty(&adev->pnp.ids))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + ret = true;
>
> On a second thought, should we return true if the list of physical devices is
> empty? That surely means ACPI_COMPANION(dev) lied to us?
I didn't consider that it is even possible but yes, in that case we
should not return true here.
>
> > + mutex_lock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
> > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
> > + const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
> > +
> > + node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
> > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
> > + if (node->dev != dev)
> > + ret = false;
>
> And that may be simply
>
> ret = node->dev == dev;
OK.
> > + }
> > + mutex_unlock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
