Hi Andy,
On 20.01.2016 21:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov
<aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Factor out the code that finds the first physical device
of a given ACPI device. It is used in several places.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hmm… Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is matter
of taste below.
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
@@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_list[] = {
+ pdevinfo.parent = adev->parent ?
+ acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL;
Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when
consumes +2 LOC.
Or, does it fit 80? How wide then?
It does not fit 80 chars. And I would prefer to leave ?: here.
--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
@@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
Device Matching
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
-static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_device *adev,
- const struct device *dev)
+/**
+ * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI device
'node' -> 'device node'
Name of the function is wrong.
I will fix the name of function. The type of returned value is clear
from the function definition.
+ * @adev: ACPI device in question
+ */
+struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev)
{
struct mutex *physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock;
+ struct device *node = NULL;
mutex_lock(physical_node_lock);
- if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
- adev = NULL;
- } else {
- const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
+ if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list))
node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
- struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
- if (node->dev != dev)
- adev = NULL;
- }
+ struct acpi_device_physical_node, node)->dev;
I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function
returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *.
Currently the name is not aligned with returned value.
It is aligned with the returned value (but not with the type of returned
value). So I would prefer to leave it as is.
Thank you for review.
Aleksey Makarov
+
mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock);
- return adev;
+
+ return node;
+}
--
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
