From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934176AbcIFLPv (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:15:51 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:35129 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933713AbcIFLPt (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:15:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1473105940-9761-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <1473105940-9761-2-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:15:46 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FtjNwEGWm_YD_aVxy3jK4t-tRT8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/8] ACPI: I/O Remapping Table (IORT) initial support To: Tomasz Nowicki Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Hanjun Guo , shijie.huang@arm.com, robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com, Marcin Wojtas , Linux PCI , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Andrea Gallo , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Al Stone , G Gregory , David Daney , Sinan Kaya Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > > On 05.09.2016 22:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >>> [cut] > static acpi_status iort_match_node_callback(struct acpi_iort_node *node, > void *context) > { > struct device *dev = context; > acpi_status status = AE_NOT_FOUND; > > switch (node->type) { > case ACPI_IORT_NODE_NAMED_COMPONENT: { > struct acpi_buffer buf = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL }; > struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device_node(dev->fwnode); > struct acpi_iort_named_component *ncomp; > > if (!adev) > break; > > status = acpi_get_name(adev->handle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, > &buf); > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) { > dev_warn(dev, "Can't get device full path name\n"); > break; > } > > ncomp = (struct acpi_iort_named_component *)node->node_data; > if (!strcmp(ncomp->device_name, buf.pointer)) > status = AE_OK; > > acpi_os_free(buf.pointer); > break; > } > case ACPI_IORT_NODE_PCI_ROOT_COMPLEX: { > struct acpi_iort_root_complex *pci_rc; > struct pci_bus *bus; > > bus = to_pci_bus(dev); > pci_rc = (struct acpi_iort_root_complex *)node->node_data; > > /* > * It is assumed that PCI segment numbers maps one-to-one > * with root complexes. Each segment number can represent > only > * one root complex. > */ > if (pci_rc->pci_segment_number == pci_domain_nr(bus)) > status = AE_OK; > > break; > } > } > > return status; > } > >> >>> + } else { >>> + int match; >>> + >>> + match = !strcmp(ncomp->device_name, >>> buffer.pointer); >>> + acpi_os_free(buffer.pointer); >>> + >>> + if (match) >>> + return AE_OK; >>> + } >>> + >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + case ACPI_IORT_NODE_PCI_ROOT_COMPLEX: { >> >> >> What is the brace for? > > > To create namespace for below local variables. The same for > ACPI_IORT_NODE_NAMED_COMPONENT case. This looks weird, though. At least nest it in a usual way. And what would be wrong with using if () {} else if () {} instead? There are two cases only here anyway. Thanks, Rafael