On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:48:03AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:21:20 AM CET Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Convert acpi_wakeup_address from a raw variable into a function so that
> > > x86 can wrap its dereference of the real mode boot header in a function
> > > instead of broadcasting it to the world via a #define. This sets the
> > > stage for a future patch to move the definition of acpi_wakeup_address()
> > > out of asm/acpi.h and thus break acpi.h's dependency on asm/realmode.h.
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> > > @@ -63,9 +63,9 @@ static int acpi_sleep_prepare(u32 acpi_state)
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> > > /* do we have a wakeup address for S2 and S3? */
> > > if (acpi_state == ACPI_STATE_S3) {
> > > - if (!acpi_wakeup_address)
> > > + if (!acpi_wakeup_address())
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > - acpi_set_waking_vector(acpi_wakeup_address);
> > > + acpi_set_waking_vector(acpi_wakeup_address());
> > >
>
> You might want to store result in a variable... especially since you are
> turning inline function into real one in a next patch.
>
> And maybe function should be called get_acip_wakeup_address or
> something? This way it is easy to mistake actual wakeup address from
> function that gets it...
Agreed on both counts.
Ingo,
Would you prefer a v2 of the entire series (with Acks and removal of Fixes),
or a v2 that includes only the last two patches?
