From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A22C433EF for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 06:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241313AbiETGNP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2022 02:13:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39474 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241053AbiETGNL (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2022 02:13:11 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58E39968E for ; Thu, 19 May 2022 23:13:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1653027190; x=1684563190; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=BDnHfBv+T1QPEXfV0OiKK5Ll3lbmuIQ3FhPcb7EgSGU=; b=j0TpjxaL9ZjYkcWB9/+4XEm5+x9HuQvGgD0E+vRt5VNQgjK0PCJhDF4v x0rccb9ZW64dEd+Z6qqIz4fmucnDqo2zYQCiGZE9RYo13q8YTFkhTZwGN dh0fVrNt72O+vTSFEkGG1VxcQiOxyPBRUEFIDRcEtJBaGUm+pPZpTEEq8 bZbNB9je0zNXf98LeEuK/jIhwE45kNq7lJ9b0szDGkJiEKxT1aw1InpM3 P8KdAKRWktoakmeSPBAXv76TRGOt0OKuHp9eQWCtB0bi8Mf58hlgxGuQu w2mrY/GvgsGeOmWBbVvCCWvADKi2owVNf17gM0xs0X4s4Oy2a77B6qtdi w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10352"; a="270089178" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,238,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="270089178" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2022 23:13:10 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,238,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="701590916" Received: from punajuuri.fi.intel.com (HELO paasikivi.fi.intel.com) ([10.237.72.43]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2022 23:13:08 -0700 Received: from paasikivi.fi.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by paasikivi.fi.intel.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 964F9203C9; Fri, 20 May 2022 09:13:06 +0300 (EEST) Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 09:13:06 +0300 From: Sakari Ailus To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , "Shevchenko, Andriy" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] ACPI: acpica: Constify pathname argument for acpi_get_handle() Message-ID: References: <20220506130025.984026-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20220506130025.984026-3-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Rafael, On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 08:05:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:41 PM Sakari Ailus > wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:07:31PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:14 PM Sakari Ailus > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:58 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_get_handle() uses the pathname argument to find a handle related to > > > > > > that pathname but it does not need to modify it. Make it const, in order > > > > > > to be able to pass const pathname to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Moore, Robert" > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus > > > > > > > > > > Which patches in the rest of the series depend on this one? > > > > > > > > "ACPI: property: Parse data node string references in properties", i.e. > > > > patch 8 in this set. > > > > > > So I think I can apply the rest of the series, except for patch 8 and > > > patch 7 (as per the previous discussion) for the upcoming merge > > > window. > > > > > > Would that work? > > > > I suppose it would apply to this one, too? > > Patch [2/11] will come to the kernel from upstream ACPICA at one point. > > > Postponing these works for me. > > So I tried to apply the series without patches [2,7-8/11], but that > didn't work (patch [9/11] did not apply). > > Please resubmit without them or let's defer the entire series until we > get patch [2/11] from ACPICA. v2 sent, with these three patches dropped. Funnily enough, I saw no conflicts with your linux-next branch. git am is more picky than git rebase though. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus