On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 08:30:52PM +0300, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
> AC driver uses struct acpi_driver incorrectly to register itself. This
> is wrong as the instances of the ACPI devices are not meant to
> be literal devices, they're supposed to describe ACPI entry of a
> particular device.
>
> Use platform_driver instead of acpi_driver. In relevant places call
> platform devices instances pdev to make a distinction with ACPI
> devices instances.
>
> Drop unnecessary casts from acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event() and
> acpi_notifier_call_chain().
>
> Add a blank line to distinguish pdev API vs local ACPI notify function.
...
> struct acpi_ac {
> struct power_supply *charger;
> struct power_supply_desc charger_desc;
> - struct acpi_device *device;
> + struct device *dev;
> unsigned long long state;
> struct notifier_block battery_nb;
> };
When changing this, also makes sense just to check if the moving a member in
the data structure makes code shorter, but it's not a show stopper.
...
> - status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ac->device->handle, "_PSR", NULL,
> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ACPI_HANDLE(ac->dev), "_PSR", NULL,
> &ac->state);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> - acpi_handle_info(ac->device->handle,
> + acpi_handle_info(ACPI_HANDLE(ac->dev),
Can we call ACPI_HANDLE() only once and cache that in a local variable and use
in all places?
...
> - struct acpi_ac *ac = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + struct acpi_ac *ac = data;
> + struct acpi_device *device = ACPI_COMPANION(ac->dev);
>
> switch (event) {
> default:
> - acpi_handle_debug(device->handle, "Unsupported event [0x%x]\n",
> + acpi_handle_debug(ACPI_HANDLE(ac->dev), "Unsupported event
> [0x%x]\n",
> event);
Does it makes any sense now? Basically it duplicates the ACPI_COMPANION() call
as Rafael pointed out in previous version discussion.
> fallthrough;
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
