Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 25 Oct 2023 21:21:12 +0300 | From | Raag Jadav <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: LPSS: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID |
| |
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:04:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:53 AM Mika Westerberg > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > Use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID instead of treating it > > > as an integer. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > I was about to apply this, but then I realized that it might change > the behavior in a subtle way, because what if the _UID string is > something like "01"?
I checked the git history and found below.
commit 2a036e489eb1571810126d6fa47bd8af1e237c08 Author: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue Sep 13 19:31:41 2022 +0300
ACPI: LPSS: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
ACPI utils provide acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() helper to extract _UID as an integer. Use it instead of custom approach.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c index c4d4d21391d7..4d415e210c32 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c @@ -167,10 +167,10 @@ static struct pwm_lookup byt_pwm_lookup[] = {
static void byt_pwm_setup(struct lpss_private_data *pdata) { - struct acpi_device *adev = pdata->adev; + u64 uid;
/* Only call pwm_add_table for the first PWM controller */ - if (!adev->pnp.unique_id || strcmp(adev->pnp.unique_id, "1")) + if (acpi_dev_uid_to_integer(pdata->adev, &uid) || uid != 1) return;
pwm_add_table(byt_pwm_lookup, ARRAY_SIZE(byt_pwm_lookup)); So if we consider the original logic with strcmp, which is more inline with acpi_dev_uid_match(), "01" should not be the case here in my opinion.
Thanks for sharing your concern though.
Raag
| |