On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 12:27:09AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:40:30PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 7:47 AM Mika Westerberg > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:28:15AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > > extern long acpi_is_video_device(acpi_handle handle); > > > > +extern bool acpi_match_video_device_handle(acpi_handle handle); > > > I think we can do slightly better here. The only caller of > > > acpi_is_video_device() is in drivers/acpi/video_detect.c so we can move > > > it there and make it static (is_video_device()). > > AFAICS, the scan.c is user of it as well. > > > > Then we can name this one acpi_is_video_device() instead and in addition > > > make it take struct acpi_device as parameter instead of acpi_handle (I > > > think we should not use acpi_handles in drivers if possible). > > > > Agreed. > > Not sure it will help to have acpi device since most of the callers asks for > handle to be checked. Actually it's 2:2 now. I'm fine with ACPI device and name like acpi_dev_is_video_device() > Taking into account above, what we can do is to rename it to > > acpi_handle_is_video_device() > > which should be clearer than initial proposal. > > Thoughts? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
