From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI: introduce a function to find the first physical device Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:12:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1453300171-25473-1-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]:36553 "EHLO mail-yk0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933215AbcATPMT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:12:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Aleksey Makarov Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm Mailing List , Graeme Gregory , Russell King , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Shannon Zhao , Vladimir Zapolskiy , Len Brown On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov wrote: > Factor out the code that finds the first physical device > of a given ACPI device. It is used in several places. > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko > Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov Hmm=E2=80=A6 Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is m= atter of taste below. > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_lis= t[] =3D { > + pdevinfo.parent =3D adev->parent ? > + acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL; Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when consumes +2 LOC. Or, does it fit 80? How wide then? > --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c > @@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(s= truct acpi_device *device) > Device Matching > -----------------------------------------------------------------= --------- */ > > -static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_de= vice *adev, > - const struct de= vice *dev) > +/** > + * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI devic= e 'node' -> 'device node' Name of the function is wrong. > + * @adev: ACPI device in question > + */ > +struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev= ) > { > struct mutex *physical_node_lock =3D &adev->physical_node_loc= k; > + struct device *node =3D NULL; > > mutex_lock(physical_node_lock); > - if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) { > - adev =3D NULL; > - } else { > - const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node; > > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) > node =3D list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list, > - struct acpi_device_physical_n= ode, node); > - if (node->dev !=3D dev) > - adev =3D NULL; > - } > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, nod= e)->dev; I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *. Currently the name is not aligned with returned value. > + > mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock); > - return adev; > + > + return node; > +} --=20 With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934434AbcATPMZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:12:25 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]:36553 "EHLO mail-yk0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933215AbcATPMT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:12:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> References: <1453300171-25473-1-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:12:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI: introduce a function to find the first physical device From: Andy Shevchenko To: Aleksey Makarov Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm Mailing List , Graeme Gregory , Russell King , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Shannon Zhao , Vladimir Zapolskiy , Len Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov wrote: > Factor out the code that finds the first physical device > of a given ACPI device. It is used in several places. > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko > Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov Hmm… Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is matter of taste below. > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_list[] = { > + pdevinfo.parent = adev->parent ? > + acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL; Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when consumes +2 LOC. Or, does it fit 80? How wide then? > --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c > @@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device) > Device Matching > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ > > -static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_device *adev, > - const struct device *dev) > +/** > + * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI device 'node' -> 'device node' Name of the function is wrong. > + * @adev: ACPI device in question > + */ > +struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev) > { > struct mutex *physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock; > + struct device *node = NULL; > > mutex_lock(physical_node_lock); > - if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) { > - adev = NULL; > - } else { > - const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node; > > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) > node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list, > - struct acpi_device_physical_node, node); > - if (node->dev != dev) > - adev = NULL; > - } > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, node)->dev; I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *. Currently the name is not aligned with returned value. > + > mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock); > - return adev; > + > + return node; > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andy.shevchenko@gmail.com (Andy Shevchenko) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:12:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI: introduce a function to find the first physical device In-Reply-To: <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> References: <1453300171-25473-1-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> <1453300171-25473-2-git-send-email-aleksey.makarov@linaro.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov wrote: > Factor out the code that finds the first physical device > of a given ACPI device. It is used in several places. > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko > Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov Hmm? Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is matter of taste below. > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_list[] = { > + pdevinfo.parent = adev->parent ? > + acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL; Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when consumes +2 LOC. Or, does it fit 80? How wide then? > --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c > @@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device) > Device Matching > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ > > -static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_device *adev, > - const struct device *dev) > +/** > + * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI device 'node' -> 'device node' Name of the function is wrong. > + * @adev: ACPI device in question > + */ > +struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev) > { > struct mutex *physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock; > + struct device *node = NULL; > > mutex_lock(physical_node_lock); > - if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) { > - adev = NULL; > - } else { > - const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node; > > + if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) > node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list, > - struct acpi_device_physical_node, node); > - if (node->dev != dev) > - adev = NULL; > - } > + struct acpi_device_physical_node, node)->dev; I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *. Currently the name is not aligned with returned value. > + > mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock); > - return adev; > + > + return node; > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko