mbox series

[v2,0/8] ACPI: unify _UID handling as integer

Message ID 20220908132910.62122-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series ACPI: unify _UID handling as integer | expand

Message

Andy Shevchenko Sept. 8, 2022, 1:29 p.m. UTC
This series is about unification on how we handle ACPI _UID when
it's known to be an integer-in-the-string.

The idea of merging either all via ACPI tree, or taking ACPI stuff
for the v6.1 while the rest may be picked up later on by respective
maintainers separately (currently all depends on Wolfram, other
patches have got the tags from the maintainers).

Partially compile-tested (x86-64).

Changelog v2:
- rebased pxa2xx patch to be applied against current Linux kernel code
- fixed uninitialized variable adev in use (mlxbf)
- dropped unneeded temporary variable adev (qcom_l2_pmu)
- changed type for ret in patch 8 (Hans)
- swapped conditions to check ret == 0 first (Ard)
- added tags (Mark, Ard, Hans)

Andy Shevchenko (8):
  ACPI: utils: Add acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() helper to get _UID as
    integer
  ACPI: LPSS: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  ACPI: x86: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  i2c: amd-mp2-plat: Refactor _UID handling to use
    acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  i2c: mlxbf: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  perf: qcom_l2_pmu: Refactor _UID handling to use
    acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  spi: pxa2xx: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()
  efi/dev-path-parser: Refactor _UID handling to use
    acpi_dev_uid_to_integer()

 drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c               | 15 ++++++-----
 drivers/acpi/utils.c                   | 24 ++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/acpi/x86/utils.c               | 14 ++++++++---
 drivers/firmware/efi/dev-path-parser.c | 10 +++++---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd-mp2-plat.c  | 27 +++++++-------------
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mlxbf.c         | 20 +++++----------
 drivers/perf/qcom_l2_pmu.c             |  8 +++---
 drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c               | 35 +++++++-------------------
 include/acpi/acpi_bus.h                |  1 +
 include/linux/acpi.h                   |  5 ++++
 10 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)

Comments

Andy Shevchenko Sept. 8, 2022, 1:37 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:29:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> This series is about unification on how we handle ACPI _UID when
> it's known to be an integer-in-the-string.
> 
> The idea of merging either all via ACPI tree, or taking ACPI stuff
> for the v6.1 while the rest may be picked up later on by respective
> maintainers separately

>(currently all depends on Wolfram, other
> patches have got the tags from the maintainers).

I stand corrected, the perf patch is not tagged yet.

> Partially compile-tested (x86-64).

Forgot to mention that there is a new user of this API is pending:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20220908072621.3415957-1-jay.xu@rock-chips.com/
Rafael J. Wysocki Sept. 10, 2022, 4:32 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:29:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > This series is about unification on how we handle ACPI _UID when
> > it's known to be an integer-in-the-string.
> >
> > The idea of merging either all via ACPI tree, or taking ACPI stuff
> > for the v6.1 while the rest may be picked up later on by respective
> > maintainers separately
>
> >(currently all depends on Wolfram, other
> > patches have got the tags from the maintainers).
>
> I stand corrected, the perf patch is not tagged yet.
>
> > Partially compile-tested (x86-64).

Tentatively applied as 6.1 material.

If there are updates, we'll make changes as they go.

Thanks!
Andy Shevchenko Sept. 12, 2022, 10:39 a.m. UTC | #3
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 06:32:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> Tentatively applied as 6.1 material.

Thanks!

> If there are updates, we'll make changes as they go.

There is one at least to fix a warning in the perf patch. Should I resend
a fixed patch, just a fix, or entire series with a fixed patch?
Andy Shevchenko Sept. 13, 2022, 4:32 p.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:39:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 06:32:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > Tentatively applied as 6.1 material.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > If there are updates, we'll make changes as they go.
> 
> There is one at least to fix a warning in the perf patch. Should I resend
> a fixed patch, just a fix, or entire series with a fixed patch?

Since LKP found one small issue with SPI patch when CONFIG_ACPI=n, I decided
to send a v3. Please, replace this by a new version in your tree, thanks!