On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:48:32 -0400
Sinan Kaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/23/2016 2:59 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> -static void vfio_platform_get_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> > +static int vfio_platform_get_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> > {
> >> > if (vdev->acpihid)
> >> > - return;
> >> > + return vfio_platform_acpi_has_reset(vdev) ? 0 : -ENOENT;
> >> >
> >> > vdev->of_reset = vfio_platform_lookup_reset(vdev->compat,
> >> >
> >> > &vdev->reset_module);
> >> > @@ -140,6 +140,8 @@ static void vfio_platform_get_reset(struct
> >> > vfio_platform_device *vdev)
> >> > vdev->of_reset =
> >> > vfio_platform_lookup_reset(vdev->compat,
> >> >
> >> > &vdev->reset_module);
> >> > }
> >> > +
> >> > + return vdev->of_reset ? 0 : -ENOENT;
> >> > }
> > nit, this looks more like a:
> >
> > static bool vfio_platform_has_reset(...)
> > ...
> > return vfio_platform_acpi_has_reset() == 0;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > return vdev->of_reset != NULL
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand this comment. The code has get and put functions
> for DT.
> These functions are not useful for ACPI. This is the reason for the above
> change.
>
> Can you be more specific?
It was sort of cryptic, I'm not entirely sure I can make sense of it
either. It think I was mainly suggesting that it looked more like a
bool function so we could just return true/false, but we are actually
setting the of_reset function as part of this, so there is a 'get'
aspect. Feel free to ignore this comment. Thanks,
Alex
