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.
