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...but happy to
> do it if you'd prefer it that way?
I see, let Rafael decide then. I'm not pushing here.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
