The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.
That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
none should be used in a driver.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
v2: no changes
drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
index a4810f199d59..a6f0257a26de 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver i2c_hid_acpi_driver = {
.name = "i2c_hid_acpi",
.pm = &i2c_hid_core_pm,
.probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
- .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_hid_acpi_match),
+ .acpi_match_table = i2c_hid_acpi_match,
},
.probe_new = i2c_hid_acpi_probe,
--
2.30.0
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
> Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.
>
> That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
> none should be used in a driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Thanks a lot for the series. This indeed cleans things up.
For the series:
Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
Jiri, I wonder where we want to land this one. This is not strictly
bug fixes, but we could definitively sneak this one in 5.12-rc1.
Well, I should probably run the series on an acpi laptop here before
merging, but I'd like to know if delaying to 5.13 is OK or if we need
this in 5.12.
Cheers,
Benjamin
> ---
> v2: no changes
> drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
> index a4810f199d59..a6f0257a26de 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver i2c_hid_acpi_driver = {
> .name = "i2c_hid_acpi",
> .pm = &i2c_hid_core_pm,
> .probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
> - .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_hid_acpi_match),
> + .acpi_match_table = i2c_hid_acpi_match,
> },
>
> .probe_new = i2c_hid_acpi_probe,
> --
> 2.30.0
>
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 04:34:41PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
> > > Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.
> > >
> > > That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
> > > none should be used in a driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the series. This indeed cleans things up.
>
> Indeed, thanks.
>
> > For the series:
> > Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
> >
> > Jiri, I wonder where we want to land this one. This is not strictly
> > bug fixes, but we could definitively sneak this one in 5.12-rc1.
> > Well, I should probably run the series on an acpi laptop here before
> > merging, but I'd like to know if delaying to 5.13 is OK or if we need
> > this in 5.12.
>
> I'd like to do it the standard way and have it bake in for-next to see if
> it really doesn't break anything, so unless there are convicing arguments
> for 5.12-rcX, I'd rathre queue this for 5.13.
For the record, I'm not in hurry with this, up to you how to proceed.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
> > Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.
> >
> > That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
> > none should be used in a driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks a lot for the series. This indeed cleans things up.
Indeed, thanks.
> For the series:
> Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
>
> Jiri, I wonder where we want to land this one. This is not strictly
> bug fixes, but we could definitively sneak this one in 5.12-rc1.
> Well, I should probably run the series on an acpi laptop here before
> merging, but I'd like to know if delaying to 5.13 is OK or if we need
> this in 5.12.
I'd like to do it the standard way and have it bake in for-next to see if
it really doesn't break anything, so unless there are convicing arguments
for 5.12-rcX, I'd rathre queue this for 5.13.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
> > > > Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.
> > > >
> > > > That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
> > > > none should be used in a driver.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for the series. This indeed cleans things up.
> >
> > Indeed, thanks.
> >
> > > For the series:
> > > Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Jiri, I wonder where we want to land this one. This is not strictly
> > > bug fixes, but we could definitively sneak this one in 5.12-rc1.
> > > Well, I should probably run the series on an acpi laptop here before
> > > merging, but I'd like to know if delaying to 5.13 is OK or if we need
> > > this in 5.12.
> >
> > I'd like to do it the standard way and have it bake in for-next to see if
> > it really doesn't break anything, so unless there are convicing arguments
> > for 5.12-rcX, I'd rathre queue this for 5.13.
>
> For the record, I'm not in hurry with this, up to you how to proceed.
> Thanks!
Queued in for-5.13/i2c-hid. Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs