On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:44:00 AM CEST Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:35:27PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com> > > > > Due to commit db3e50f3234b ("device property: Get rid of struct > > fwnode_handle type field"), ACPI_HANDLE() inadvertently became > > a GPL-only call. The call path that led to that was: > > > > ACPI_HANDLE() > > ACPI_COMPANION() > > to_acpi_device_node() > > is_acpi_device_node() > > acpi_device_fwnode_ops > > DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS(acpi_device_fwnode_ops); > > > > ...and the new DECLARE_ACPI_FWNODE_OPS() includes > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, whereas previously it was a static struct. > > > > In order to avoid changing any of that, let's instead provide ever > > so slightly better encapsulation of those struct fwnode_operations > > instances. Those do not really need to be directly used in > > inline function calls in header files. Simply moving two small > > functions (is_acpi_device_node and is_acpi_data_node) out of > > acpi_bus.h, and into a .c file, does that. > > > > That leaves the internals of struct fwnode_operations as GPL-only > > (which I think was the intent all along), but un-breaks any driver > > code out there that relies on the ACPI subsystem's being (historically) > > an EXPORT_SYMBOL-usable system. By that, I mean, ACPI_HANDLE() and > > other basic ACPI calls were non-GPL-protected. > > > > Also, while I'm there, remove a tiny bit of redundancy that was missed > > in the earlier commit, by having is_acpi_node() use the other two > > routines, instead of checking fwnode directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com> > > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> >
OK, applied. Side note: I'm slightly unhappy with the number of checks in the ACPI_COMPANION() path. Do we really ever pass anything other than struct acpi_device to ACPI_COMPANION_SET() as the second arg? Thanks, Rafael