On 10/12/21 19:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
The ACPI_HANDLE() macro is a wrapper arond the ACPI_COMPANION()
macro and the ACPI handle produced by the former comes from the
ACPI device object produced by the latter, so it is way more
straightforward to evaluate the latter directly instead of passing
the handle produced by the former to acpi_bus_get_device().
Modify mshw0011_notify() accordingly (no intentional functional
impact).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks mostly good to me, small comment/question inline.
---
drivers/platform/surface/surface3_power.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/platform/surface/surface3_power.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/platform/surface/surface3_power.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/platform/surface/surface3_power.c
@@ -160,15 +160,14 @@ mshw0011_notify(struct mshw0011_data *cd
{
union acpi_object *obj;
struct acpi_device *adev;
- acpi_handle handle;
unsigned int i;
- handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&cdata->adp1->dev);
- if (!handle || acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev))
+ adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&cdata->adp1->dev);
+ if (!adev)
return -ENODEV;
Do we need to get the ACPI device (adev) here? To me it looks like only
its handle is actually used so why not keep ACPI_HANDLE() and remove the
acpi_bus_get_device() call instead?
- obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(handle, &mshw0011_guid, arg1, arg2, NULL,
- ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER);
+ obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(adev->handle, &mshw0011_guid, arg1, arg2,
+ NULL, ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER);
if (!obj) {
dev_err(&cdata->adp1->dev, "device _DSM execution failed\n");
return -ENODEV;
Regards,
Max
