Hi Rafael On 20/05/2021 19:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:33 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:11 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert >>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the >>> specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from" >>> the dependee, so add a callback and a wrapper to walk over the >>> acpi_dep_list and return the dependent ACPI device. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Changes since v3: >>> >>> Both new functions were renamed. >>> >>> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>> index 195635c3462b..1a76fbdfa669 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>> @@ -2105,6 +2105,21 @@ static void acpi_bus_attach(struct acpi_device *device, bool first_pass) >>> device->handler->hotplug.notify_online(device); >>> } >>> >>> +static int acpi_return_dep_dev(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data) >> What about calling this acpi_get_first_consumer_cb()? > Or acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_dev_cb() if you want to be super-precise? Sure; fine by me, and same for the other function
