Hi!
On 2021-11-15 16:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Recently ACPI gained the acpi_get_local_address() API which may be used
> instead of home grown i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c | 43 ++------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c
> index bac415a52b78..31e6eb1591bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpio.c
> @@ -49,45 +49,6 @@ static int i2c_mux_gpio_deselect(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> -
> -static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev,
> - struct fwnode_handle *fwdev,
> - unsigned int *adr)
> -
> -{
> - unsigned long long adr64;
> - acpi_status status;
> -
> - status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE(fwdev),
> - METHOD_NAME__ADR,
> - NULL, &adr64);
> -
> - if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Cannot get address\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> - *adr = adr64;
> - if (*adr != adr64) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Address out of range\n");
> - return -ERANGE;
> - }
In the conversion, I read it as if we lose this overflow check. Why is that
not a problem?
Cheers,
Peter
> -
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> -#else
> -
> -static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev,
> - struct fwnode_handle *fwdev,
> - unsigned int *adr)
> -{
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -
> -#endif
> -
> static int i2c_mux_gpio_probe_fw(struct gpiomux *mux,
> struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> @@ -141,9 +102,9 @@ static int i2c_mux_gpio_probe_fw(struct gpiomux *mux,
> fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", values + i);
>
> } else if (is_acpi_node(child)) {
> - rc = i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(dev, child, values + i);
> + rc = acpi_get_local_address(ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE(child), values + i);
> if (rc)
> - return rc;
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, rc, "Cannot get address\n");
> }
>
> i++;
>
