Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Get acpi_device's parent from the parent field

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:09:04AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 02:19:13PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 01:19:34PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:

...

> > > -	} else if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) {
> > > +	}
> > 
> > > +	if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) {
> > 
> > Unneeded change. Yes I know that 'else' here can be skipped. But in such cases
> > it's a trade-off between changes, code readability and maintenance. Since here
> > it's a fix, backporting concerns are also play role.
> 
> The patch applies cleanly to 5.5, the oldest kernel where it's needed.

Why? I don't see how this affects the workflow.

> Do you prefer another patch to remove the else clause?

Nope.

> I think it's a bit overkill...

Exactly, that's why the question is why have you split the if-else-if to two if:s?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko