From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <1519812844.10722.253.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] dmi: Introduce dmi_get_bios_year() helper From: Andy Shevchenko To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Bjorn Helgaas , Linux PCI , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Jean Delvare , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:14:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20180222125923.57385-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20180223213552.GL14632@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <1519565039.10722.145.camel@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 10:29 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:35 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > but making this inline looks similar to this, which > > > wasn't well-received: > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFypU331cQy- > > > 6ZJ6szF=2KVLqcbwCUGd+gTwPViRqRWN+g@mail.gmail.com > > > > "Yes, that header file is already full of random inline functions, > > but > > they are generally wrapper functions that don't really do anything, > > ..." > > > > I think the function above is exactly from the "wrapper that doesn't > > really do anything" category. > > Yes, but honestly does it need to be inline even so? > > Why don't you simply put the wrapper into dmi_scan.c and export it? Taking into consideration that there are few comments to be addressed and series had been applied, I will send a fix up series where I move this to be a normal function. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy