On 14/02/2018 16:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Another approach is to use ~0UL if that is preferable.
>>> + list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
>>> + resources[count++] = *rentry->res;
>> It has similarities with acpi_create_platform_device().
>> I guess we can utilize existing code.
> For sure, this particular segment is effectively same as part of
> acpi_create_platform_device():
Not the same, acpi_create_platform_device() does a bit more than
copying the resources. If it indeed makes no hurt...
> list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node)
> acpi_platform_fill_resource(adev, rentry->res,
> &resources[count++]);
> So is your idea to refactor this common segment into a helper function?
...I would go with helper.
Hi Andy,
Since the plan now is that this code is no longer going to be added to
drivers/acpi, but instead pushed to the LLDD, I am pondering whether we
should still factor out of this common code. Opinion?
Thanks,
John
>>> + char *name = &acpi_indirect_io_mfd_cell[count].name[0];
--
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
