Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:00:09 +0300 | From | Raag Jadav <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] ACPI: utils: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID |
| |
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
| |