On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip) > > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > > return; > > > > - acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI", > > + acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI, > > acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio); > > This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag? This means "for Linux next cycle". It has roots in the net subsystem where it's a requirement to mark each patch either net or net-next, because they have a huge traffic of patches. > That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly). I think I will take it. Care to provide your tag? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko