From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] ACPI: Use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead of non-NULL check in is_acpi_data_node Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:12:15 +0300 Message-ID: <1500639135.29303.172.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1500637177-16095-1-git-send-email-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <1500637177-16095-2-git-send-email-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <1500638399.29303.166.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1500638399.29303.166.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sakari Ailus , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, ahs3@redhat.com, frowand.list@gmail.com, erik.veijola@intel.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:59 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:39 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > The is_acpi_data_node() function takes a struct fwnode_handle > > pointer > > as > > its argument. The validity of the pointer is first checked. Extend > > the > > check to cover error values as is done by similar is_acpi_node() and > > is_acpi_device_node() functions. > > > > > It seems we will have three places with such code. Do we care to get > rid > of them in favor of is_acpi_data_node()? (I didn't read whole series > yet, maybe it's already done) Please, ignore this comment, I messed up with FWNODE_ACPI type. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy