lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child()
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 12:49 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/06/2022 19:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child()
> >
> > Instead of walking the list of children of an ACPI device directly,
> > use acpi_dev_for_each_child() to carry out an action for all of
> > the given ACPI device's children.
> >
> > This will help to eliminate the children list head from struct
> > acpi_device as it is redundant and it is used in questionable ways
> > in some places (in particular, locking is needed for walking the
> > list pointed to it safely, but it is often missing).
> >
> > While at it, simplify hisi_lpc_acpi_set_io_res() by making it accept
> > a struct acpi_device pointer from the caller, instead of going to
> > struct device and back to get the same result, and clean up confusion
> > regarding hostdev and its ACPI companion in that function.
> >
> > Also remove a redundant check from it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> This change itself looks fine and I quickly tested, so:
> Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>
> However Yang Yingliang spotted a pre-existing bug in the ACPI probe and
> sent a fix today (coincidence?):
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220701094352.2104998-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/T/#u
>
> And they conflict. This code has been this way for years, so I just
> suggest Yang Yingliang resends the fix on top off Rafael's change.

Well, as I've just said, I can apply both patches just fine.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-01 20:20    [W:0.057 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site