From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ACPI / LPSS: Get rid of custom ICPU() macro Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:08:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20190114110854.GK2773@zn.tnic> References: <20190109165754.90072-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20190109165754.90072-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190109165754.90072-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 06:57:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Replace custom grown macro with generic INTEL_CPU_FAM6_NODATA() one. > > No functional change intended. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > index 5f94c35d165f..633a528bb6ea 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > @@ -311,11 +311,9 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc bsw_spi_dev_desc = { > .setup = lpss_deassert_reset, > }; > > -#define ICPU(model) { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, } > - > static const struct x86_cpu_id lpss_cpu_ids[] = { > - ICPU(INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT), /* Valleyview, Bay Trail */ Sorry but the previous one was better: INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT I can find in the tree... > - ICPU(INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_AIRMONT), /* Braswell, Cherry Trail */ > + INTEL_CPU_FAM6_NODATA(ATOM_SILVERMONT), /* Valleyview, Bay Trail */ For ATOM_SILVERMONT I find different things: INTEL_CPU_FAM6(ATOM_SILVERMONT X86_CSTATES_MODEL(INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT ICPU(INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT ... so you guys need to sit down and agree on a single form of usage and stick with it. And I'd advise against the first one which cuts off the INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT and other defines. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.