Hi Mark,
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:54:32AM -0700, Hoan Tran wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 09:47:55AM -0700, Hoan Tran wrote:
>> >> +static const struct acpi_device_id *xgene_pmu_acpi_match_type(
>> >> + const struct acpi_device_id *ids,
>> >> + struct acpi_device *adev)
>> >> +{
>> >> + const struct acpi_device_id *match_id = NULL;
>> >> + const struct acpi_device_id *id;
>> >> +
>> >> + for (id = ids; id->id[0] || id->cls; id++) {
>> >> + if (!acpi_match_device_ids(adev, id))
>> >> + match_id = id;
>> >> + else if (match_id)
>> >> + break;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + return match_id;
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > I don't believe this look is necessary. AFAICT, acpi_match_device_ids()
>> > already iterates over the id table it is given.
>>
>> The acpi_match_device_ids() function just returns if a device ID is
>> available on the given list. It does not return the first matching ID.
>> That's the reason I created this function to find the first matching ID.
>
> Ah, I see. Thanks for correcting me!
>
> Can we use acpi_match_device(ids, &adev->dev), or is that the wrong dev?
They are subnode device, so they don't have full dev. Because of that,
acpi_match_device doesn't work.
Thanks
Hoan
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
