Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:00:09 +0300
From:   Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, robert.moore@intel.com,
        mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, linux@roeck-us.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        acpica-devel@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@intel.com, bala.senthil@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] ACPI: utils: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for
 matching _UID
Message-ID: <ZTKH6bNPiy1fZKEG@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20231020084732.17130-1-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <20231020084732.17130-5-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <ZTJYK02w8HZg26eI@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <ZTJmnv6CsZUt0pIS@black.fi.intel.com>
 <ZTKDsBPraERaautV@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZTKDsBPraERaautV@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:42:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:38:06PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 01:36:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:17:28PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > Convert manual _UID references to use standard ACPI helpers.
> > > 
> > > Yes, while not so obvious this is the correct replacement.
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > I think this is the only case which would suffer from the more obvious
> > behaviour, i.e.
> 
> No, that's not true. The same with override CPU in the other patch, where the
> check is simply absent, but the result will be the same. So, all with negation
> will suffer from the "obvious" implementation.

Forgot to add, we don't need to change the original acpi_dev_hid_uid_match()
behaviour, i.e.

bool acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev,
                            const char *hid2, const char *uid2)
{
        const char *hid1 = acpi_device_hid(adev);

        if (strcmp(hid1, hid2))
                return false;

        if (!uid2)
                return true;

        return acpi_dev_uid_match(adev, uid2);
}

I'm fine with both, this just makes more sense to me.

Raag