On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 09:51 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:53:57PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> >
> > + out_obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(lps0_device_handle,
> > &lps0_dsm_guid,
> > + 1,
> > ACPI_LPS0_GET_DEVICE_CONSTRAINTS,
> > + NULL);
> > +
> > + acpi_handle_debug(lps0_device_handle, "_DSM function 1
> > eval %s\n",
> > + out_obj ? "successful" : "failed");
> > +
> > + if (!out_obj)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (out_obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE)
> > + goto free_acpi_buffer;
>
> Using acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed() would avoid having to check the type
> here.
>
>
> >
> > + for (i = 0; i < out_obj->package.count; i++) {
> > + union acpi_object *package = &out_obj-
> > >package.elements[i];
> > + struct lpi_device_info info;
> > + int package_count = 0, j;
> > +
> > + if (!package)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + info.enabled = 0;
> > + info.package = NULL;
> > + info.name = NULL;
>
> Using a declaration such as
>
> struct lpi_device_info info = { };
>
> would avoid having to zero the struct elements here.
Thanks for the review. I will send update including these.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
--
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
