Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] pinctrl: intel: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:43 PM Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:35:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:05:26AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > Convert manual _UID references to use the standard ACPI helper.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It has a hidden logic that is not aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match().
> > Or revert to your v1 I assume.
>
> I don't see how this has to be aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() or
> if acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() implementation concerns this specific change,
> since that's not what we intend to do here.
>
> Also, I think acpi_dev_uid_match() implementation in v2 is actually more
> aligned with the previous logic that we're replacing here, since it gives
> us a guaranteed match result as originally intended with strcmp in this
> case. And the "hidden logic" in v1 implementation (match with @uid2 == NULL)
> is what ends up breaking it in my opinion.
>
> Regardless, for any version (v1 or v2) the usage still remains the same
> in this case.

Right, so it is a bit unclear what all of the fuss is about.

> > As I asked you, please drop this one.
>
> But okay, as you wish :(
>
> Rafael, should I send a v3 with dropped tags?

No need to resend in general, I can drop tags from the patches just fine.

For this one, though, I'd like to get a maintainer's ACK, so it may be
necessary to resend it without the tag.