Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 02:39:30PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 1:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:16 AM Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com> wrote:

...

> > > >  static int acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > >                                           const char *propname, const char *nargs_prop,
> > > >                                           unsigned int args_count, unsigned int index,
> >
> > > >         const struct acpi_device_data *data;
> > > >         struct fwnode_handle *ref_fwnode;
> > > >         struct acpi_device *device;
> > > > +       unsigned int nargs_count;
> > > >         int ret, idx = 0;
> >
> > > > +                       nargs_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> > >
> > > I think it should work the same way as it used to for the callers that
> > > pass args_count, so maybe
> > >
> > > if (!args_count)
> > >         args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> >
> > But this is different variable.
> 
> Of course it is different.  It is an acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args() parameter.
> 
> > > >                         element++;
> > > > -
> > > >                         ret = acpi_get_ref_args(idx == index ? args : NULL,
> > > >                                                 acpi_fwnode_handle(device),
> > > > -                                               &element, end, args_count);
> > > > +                                               &element, end,
> > > > +                                               nargs_count ? nargs_count : args_count);
> > >
> > > And this change would not be necessary?
> >
> > This is not the same check as proposed above.
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> It just makes the function work the same way it did before the change
> for the callers who passed nozero args_count and so they might be
> forgiven expecting that it would be taken into account.

I see your point now. But do we have such a user? I dunno.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko