On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 22/02/2021 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> The acpi_walk_dep_device_list() is not as generalisable as its name
> > >> implies, serving only to decrement the dependency count for each
> > >> dependent device of the input. Extend the function to instead accept
> > >> a callback which can be applied to all the dependencies in acpi_dep_list.
> > >> Replace all existing calls to the function with calls to a wrapper, passing
> > >> a callback that applies the same dependency reduction.
> > > The code looks okay to me, if it was the initial idea, feel free to add
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > >> + */
> > >> +void acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met(acpi_handle handle)
> > >> +{
> > > Since it's acpi_dev_* namespace, perhaps it should take struct acpi_device here?
> >
> >
> > I can do this, but I avoided it because in most of the uses in the
> > kernel currently there's no struct acpi_device, they're just passing
> > ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead, so I'd need to get the adev with
> > ACPI_COMPANION() in each place. It didn't seem worth it...
It may not even be possible sometimes, because that function may be
called before creating all of the struct acpi_device objects (like in
the case of deferred enumeration).
> > but happy to
> > do it if you'd prefer it that way?
>
> I see, let Rafael decide then. I'm not pushing here.
Well, it's a matter of correctness.
