On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:49:56AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> +#define DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS(ops) \
>> + const struct fwnode_operations ops = { \
>> + .device_is_available = acpi_fwnode_device_is_available, \
>> + .property_present = acpi_fwnode_property_present, \
>> + .property_read_int_array = \
>> + acpi_fwnode_property_read_int_array, \
>> + .property_read_string_array = \
>> + acpi_fwnode_property_read_string_array, \
>> + .get_parent = acpi_node_get_parent, \
>> + .get_next_child_node = acpi_get_next_subnode, \
>> + .get_named_child_node = acpi_fwnode_get_named_child_node, \
>> + .graph_get_next_endpoint = \
>> + acpi_fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint, \
>> + .graph_get_remote_endpoint = \
>> + acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint, \
>> + .graph_get_port_parent = acpi_node_get_parent, \
>> + .graph_parse_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_parse_endpoint, \
>> + }; \
>> + EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ops)
>> +
>> +DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS(acpi_device_fwnode_ops);
>> +DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS(acpi_data_fwnode_ops);
>> +DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS(acpi_static_fwnode_ops);
>
> I do not think it is a great idea to associate valid fwnode_operations
> to a static ACPI fwnode (which is just a tag - like the IRQCHIP one).
Sakari, care to address this comment?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
