On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 09:51 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:53:57PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > 
> > +   out_obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(lps0_device_handle,
> > &lps0_dsm_guid,
> > +                               1,
> > ACPI_LPS0_GET_DEVICE_CONSTRAINTS,
> > +                               NULL);
> > +
> > +   acpi_handle_debug(lps0_device_handle, "_DSM function 1
> > eval %s\n",
> > +                     out_obj ? "successful" : "failed");
> > +
> > +   if (!out_obj)
> > +           return;
> > +
> > +   if (out_obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE)
> > +           goto free_acpi_buffer;
> 
> Using acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed() would avoid having to check the type
> here.
> 
> 
> > 
> > +   for (i = 0; i < out_obj->package.count; i++) {
> > +           union acpi_object *package = &out_obj-
> > >package.elements[i];
> > +           struct lpi_device_info info;
> > +           int package_count = 0, j;
> > +
> > +           if (!package)
> > +                   continue;
> > +
> > +           info.enabled = 0;
> > +           info.package = NULL;
> > +           info.name = NULL;
> 
> Using a declaration such as
> 
>               struct lpi_device_info info = { };
> 
> would avoid having to zero the struct elements here.
Thanks for the review. I will send update including these.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lukas

Reply via email to