On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Russell King (Oracle)
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

I'm not sure why you want the above to be two if () statements instead of one?

I would change the ordering anyway, that is

if (!IS_ERR(phy_node) || is_acpi_node(fwnode))
        return phy_node;

And I think that the is_acpi_node() check is there to return the error
code right away so as to avoid returning a "not found" error later.

But I'm not sure if this is really necessary.  Namely, if nothing
depends on the specific error code returned by this function, it would
be somewhat cleaner to let the code below run if phy_node is an error
pointer in the ACPI case, because in that case the code below will
produce an error pointer anyway.

However, that opens the door to someone shipping "working" ACPI with
one of these names that we've taken the decision not to support on
ACPI firmware. Surely, it's much better that we don't accept the
legacy names so we don't allow such configurations to work.

Fair enough.