Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:42:48 +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, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
        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 v2 2/6] pinctrl: intel: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for
 matching _UID
Message-ID: <ZTaGaDweYpBlxBez@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20231023053530.5525-1-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <20231023053530.5525-3-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <ZTZacR86hSmV04M9@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZTZacR86hSmV04M9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 02:35:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:05:26AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Convert manual _UID references to use the standard ACPI helper.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> 
> It has a hidden logic that is not aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match().
> Or revert to your v1 I assume.

I don't see how this has to be aligned with acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() or
if acpi_dev_hid_uid_match() implementation concerns this specific change,
since that's not what we intend to do here.

Also, I think acpi_dev_uid_match() implementation in v2 is actually more
aligned with the previous logic that we're replacing here, since it gives
us a guaranteed match result as originally intended with strcmp in this
case. And the "hidden logic" in v1 implementation (match with @uid2 == NULL)
is what ends up breaking it in my opinion.

Regardless, for any version (v1 or v2) the usage still remains the same
in this case.

> As I asked you, please drop this one.

But okay, as you wish :(

Rafael, should I send a v3 with dropped tags?

Raag