2018-07-03 22:50:17

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: bus.c: Let acpi_device_get_match_data() return DT compatibility data

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Nikolaus Voss
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for the patch, now I completely got it and agree on approach.
Few comments below.

> When using ACPI with ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID/ PRP0001 HID and referring to
> of_device_id table "compatible" strings in DSD, a pointer to the

_DSD

> corresponding DT table entry should be returned instead of a null
> pointer. An acpi_device_id match still takes precedence.

> const void *acpi_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev)
> {
> - const struct acpi_device_id *match;
> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id = NULL;
> + const struct of_device_id *of_id = NULL;
> + const struct device_driver *drv = dev->driver;
>
> - match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> - if (!match)

> + __acpi_match_device(acpi_companion_match(dev), drv->acpi_match_table,
> + drv->of_match_table, &acpi_id, &of_id);

Perhaps,

bool match;

match = __acpi_match_device(..);
if (!match)
return NULL;

...
> + if (acpi_id)
> + return (const void*)acpi_id->driver_data;
> + else if (of_id)
> + return (const void*)of_id->data;

Actually (dbesides redundant 'else') there is no difference in which
order you test these.
Thus, perhaps

if (of_id)
return ...of_id...;

return ...acpi_id...;

> - return (const void *)match->driver_data;
> }


--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2018-07-04 13:01:07

by Nikolaus Voss

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: bus.c: Let acpi_device_get_match_data() return DT compatibility data

On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Nikolaus Voss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patch, now I completely got it and agree on approach.
> Few comments below.
>
>> When using ACPI with ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID/ PRP0001 HID and referring to
>> of_device_id table "compatible" strings in DSD, a pointer to the
>
> _DSD
>
>> corresponding DT table entry should be returned instead of a null
>> pointer. An acpi_device_id match still takes precedence.
>
>> const void *acpi_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev)
>> {
>> - const struct acpi_device_id *match;
>> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id = NULL;
>> + const struct of_device_id *of_id = NULL;
>> + const struct device_driver *drv = dev->driver;
>>
>> - match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
>> - if (!match)
>
>> + __acpi_match_device(acpi_companion_match(dev), drv->acpi_match_table,
>> + drv->of_match_table, &acpi_id, &of_id);
>
> Perhaps,
>
> bool match;
>
> match = __acpi_match_device(..);
> if (!match)
> return NULL;
>
> ...
>> + if (acpi_id)
>> + return (const void*)acpi_id->driver_data;
>> + else if (of_id)
>> + return (const void*)of_id->data;
>
> Actually (dbesides redundant 'else') there is no difference in which
> order you test these.
> Thus, perhaps
>
> if (of_id)
> return ...of_id...;
>
> return ...acpi_id...;
>
>> - return (const void *)match->driver_data;
>> }

Thanks for reviewing and feedback, posted v2...

Niko