Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210112134054.342-1-calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com>
 <20210112134054.342-10-calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com> <CAHp75VdyPWD-cM5Q_9k8yRAutMSjm-3kwE0pQT3+ztKGwcU+4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hic-Yf74Rn06kui4z+KZBES_uiH-pRmmRcFcYjuDZ=CA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp75Vc=b8tXmv7yussXNVKPOovmpKAB1b9cWSAw5rpKDcvLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vc=b8tXmv7yussXNVKPOovmpKAB1b9cWSAw5rpKDcvLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:12:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ivSmgAbfH9JhGHRp9411F14XtrimESHftZGMLYKLfKmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 09/15] device property: Introduce fwnode_get_id()
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@nxp.com>,
        Florin Laurentiu Chiculita <florinlaurentiu.chiculita@nxp.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@oss.nxp.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
        Pieter Jansen Van Vuuren <pieter.jansenvv@bamboosystems.io>,
        Jon <jon@solid-run.com>,
        Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@nxp.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux.cj" <linux.cj@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 7:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:47 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:42 PM Calvin Johnson
> > > <calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +int fwnode_get_id(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, u32 *id)
> > > > +{
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > +       unsigned long long adr;
> > > > +       acpi_status status;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +       int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +       ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "reg", id);
> > > > +       if (!(ret && is_acpi_node(fwnode)))
> > > > +               return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > +       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE(fwnode),
> > > > +                                      METHOD_NAME__ADR, NULL, &adr);
> > > > +       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +       *id = (u32)adr;
> > >
> > > Shouldn't be
> > >
> > >        return 0;
> > > #else
> > >        return -EINVAL;
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Yes, it's a theoretical case when is_acpi_node() returns true when
> > > CONFIG_ACPI=n.
> >
> > How so?  is_acpi_node() is defined as a static inline returning false then.
>
> I understand that, that's why it's pure theoretical when, for example,
> the semantics is changed. But I believe it's unlucky to happen.

Changing the definition of it for CONFIG_ACPI=n would be a regression
given the current usage of it.