From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in
 __gpiod_get_index()
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:43:24 +0200
Message-ID: <20150311084324.GD1563@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <4032246.STUT1iRmIk@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <1829371.gDPkhnsp25@vostro.rjw.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1829371.gDPkhnsp25@vostro.rjw.lan>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:08:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are
> enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give
> up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that.
> 
> Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient
> than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out
> a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the
> ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not
> require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>