On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:45:35PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:59:18 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ACPI_PTR() is more harmful than helpful. For example, in this case
> > if CONFIG_ACPI=n, the ID table left unused which is not what we want.
> >
> > Instead of adding ifdeffery or attribute here and there, drop ACPI_PTR().
> >
> > Fixes: 3b3870646642 ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Mark acpi match table as maybe unused")
> > Fixes: fd64df16f40e ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Add SPI support for MPU6000")
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Whilst I fully support tidying this up, what is 'fixing' as such?
> Will get rid of an unused warning for the spi case but that sort
> of things doesn't always get fixes tags.
True, however I can find a handful examples when this kind of patches were backported.
> They tend to result
> in backports and I wouldn't think it was worth backporting this
> unless I'm missing something...
It's not critical, so can you drop the tags when applying, if you think that's
okay?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
