Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:51:00 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>,
        mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] gpiolib: acpi: Use METHOD_NAME__AEI macro for
 acpi_walk_resources
Message-ID: <Y1FSRJC9s+7cvJI3@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221020014426.188667-1-xiangyang3@huawei.com>
 <CAMRc=Md6nseghBwfiRCL0KQ1BJ0WE7MH9QENf=HdJdnC1Xz1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Md6nseghBwfiRCL0KQ1BJ0WE7MH9QENf=HdJdnC1Xz1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
> > +       acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
> >                             acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);
> 
> This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag?

This means "for Linux next cycle". It has roots in the net subsystem where
it's a requirement to mark each patch either net or net-next, because they
have a huge traffic of patches.

> That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly).

I think I will take it. Care to provide your tag?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko