On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:08 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:47:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The ACPI_MODULE_NAME() definition is only used by the message > > > printing macros from ACPICA that are not used by the code in > > > question, so it is redundant. Drop it. > > > > > > No functional impact. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > If there are no concerns regarding this, I'll queue it up for 5.13 in > > the ACPI tree, thanks! > > I'd prefer the I2C tree a tad to avoid conflicts. Any reason for the > ACPI tree? There are some patches doing this type of a cleanup in the ACPI tree, but this is the only reason, so please route it through the i2c tree if that is preferred.
