From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2738920B00 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="gocPp/+N" Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6D81E5; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:21:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1698258079; x=1729794079; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=1XxRYZev688GItXPqGvO0ocX1uiRbGTVxSVwMDhhgRM=; b=gocPp/+NV/0biID18u4XD5TMjjrQSked8lNk7k/TZ4pCyW5qO1AcExtk ki6E07cZLQCvfvpCUTqpvTSM+ls2cVu/nDWZVlj0SQeqWOK2IykT+s0qM 9WuO2dgjlO9JumKcbnt6Ot/8YMT5mF1xDVKNDkWyZM3FF1vcmTdnIj4mq t2RJyQE5WhECrjR+0JG4ubvwE+WmRCyIt4EZVCY6TJ+Cjn7m7R1yt/g/G U2XGL801wntGxU1ud/RY8DjZc4XOTyTtkJNbeIOLWhRj92+BKHFECFCgl XFBWjTdzH4KQ4sDdGQgAlrm+2XolYHRjDN1V7J58yJyLEbsCNq78HldPC w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10874"; a="155295" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,250,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="155295" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2023 11:21:18 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10874"; a="735475743" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,250,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="735475743" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2023 11:21:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 21:21:12 +0300 From: Raag Jadav To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mika Westerberg , len.brown@intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mallikarjunappa.sangannavar@intel.com, bala.senthil@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: LPSS: use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID Message-ID: References: <20231025053833.16014-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> <20231025055345.GI3208943@black.fi.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:04:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:53 AM Mika Westerberg > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > Use acpi_dev_uid_match() for matching _UID instead of treating it > > > as an integer. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg > > I was about to apply this, but then I realized that it might change > the behavior in a subtle way, because what if the _UID string is > something like "01"? I checked the git history and found below. commit 2a036e489eb1571810126d6fa47bd8af1e237c08 Author: Andy Shevchenko Date: Tue Sep 13 19:31:41 2022 +0300 ACPI: LPSS: Refactor _UID handling to use acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() ACPI utils provide acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() helper to extract _UID as an integer. Use it instead of custom approach. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c index c4d4d21391d7..4d415e210c32 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c @@ -167,10 +167,10 @@ static struct pwm_lookup byt_pwm_lookup[] = { static void byt_pwm_setup(struct lpss_private_data *pdata) { - struct acpi_device *adev = pdata->adev; + u64 uid; /* Only call pwm_add_table for the first PWM controller */ - if (!adev->pnp.unique_id || strcmp(adev->pnp.unique_id, "1")) + if (acpi_dev_uid_to_integer(pdata->adev, &uid) || uid != 1) return; pwm_add_table(byt_pwm_lookup, ARRAY_SIZE(byt_pwm_lookup)); So if we consider the original logic with strcmp, which is more inline with acpi_dev_uid_match(), "01" should not be the case here in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your concern though. Raag