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 mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF5EC433FE for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EAB61247 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229781AbhKJI7n (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:59:43 -0500 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:45167 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230053AbhKJI7n (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:59:43 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10163"; a="219525624" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,223,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="219525624" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2021 00:56:56 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,223,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="602133696" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.184]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2021 00:56:54 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1mkjPO-005MK6-RE; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:56:42 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:56:42 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sakari Ailus Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, John Ogness , rafael@kernel.org, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Get acpi_device's parent from the parent field Message-ID: References: <20211109111935.1627406-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20211109111935.1627406-2-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:21:36AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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? > > The else clause is useless, I think the code simply looks better without > it. I see a contradiction here: Statement 1: 'else' is useless. Statement 2: patch to remove it is overkill. Either separate patch for that, or no need to touch this code, esp. taken into consideration that this is a fix (subject to backport). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko