| Message ID | 20231020084732.17130-5-raag.jadav@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Refine _UID references across kernel | expand |
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>
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. bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2) { const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev); return uid1 && uid2 && !strcmp(uid1, uid2); } That said, we can't be particularly sure about it's potential future users, especially when the usage will not be limited to just ACPI core since we're exporting it. Raag
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. > bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2) > { > const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev); > > return uid1 && uid2 && !strcmp(uid1, uid2); > } > > That said, we can't be particularly sure about it's potential future users, > especially when the usage will not be limited to just ACPI core since we're > exporting it.
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
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 1:38 PM Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> 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. > > bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2) > { > const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev); > > return uid1 && uid2 && !strcmp(uid1, uid2); > } > > That said, we can't be particularly sure about it's potential future users, > especially when the usage will not be limited to just ACPI core since we're > exporting it. I actually agree with this, so please switch over to the above. The above is straightforward and easy to understand and if somebody wants to treat uid2 == NULL as a match, let them check that explicitly before calling this function.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:11:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 1:38 PM Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> 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. > > > > bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2) > > { > > const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev); > > > > return uid1 && uid2 && !strcmp(uid1, uid2); > > } > > > > That said, we can't be particularly sure about it's potential future users, > > especially when the usage will not be limited to just ACPI core since we're > > exporting it. > > I actually agree with this, so please switch over to the above. Will send out a v2, thanks. Andy, can I add your review for this? Raag
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:11:56PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:11:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 1:38 PM Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> 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. > > > > > > bool acpi_dev_uid_match(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *uid2) > > > { > > > const char *uid1 = acpi_device_uid(adev); > > > > > > return uid1 && uid2 && !strcmp(uid1, uid2); > > > } > > > > > > That said, we can't be particularly sure about it's potential future users, > > > especially when the usage will not be limited to just ACPI core since we're > > > exporting it. > > > > I actually agree with this, so please switch over to the above. > > Will send out a v2, thanks. > > Andy, can I add your review for this? IIUC you agree with the usage format, but not the actual helper. So I'm gonna drop it from the first patch and keep it for the rest, except this one. Let me know if I'm doing this wrong. Raag
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c index 664b9890b625..e3ba835e6590 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c @@ -889,8 +889,7 @@ static int acpi_dev_match_cb(struct device *dev, const void *data) if (acpi_match_device_ids(adev, match->hid)) return 0; - if (match->uid && (!adev->pnp.unique_id || - strcmp(adev->pnp.unique_id, match->uid))) + if (!acpi_dev_uid_match(adev, match->uid)) return 0; if (match->hrv == -1)
Convert manual _UID references to use standard ACPI helpers. Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> --- drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)