Hi Andy,

On 20.01.2016 21:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Factor out the code that finds the first physical device
of a given ACPI device.  It is used in several places.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov <redacted>

Hmm? Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is matter
of taste below.

quoted

--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c

@@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_list[] = {

quoted

+       pdevinfo.parent = adev->parent ?
+               acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL;

Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when
consumes +2 LOC.
Or, does it fit 80? How wide then?

It does not fit 80 chars.  And I would prefer to leave ?: here.

quoted

--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c

@@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
                               Device Matching
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */

-static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_device *adev,
-                                                     const struct device *dev)
+/**
+ * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI device

'node' -> 'device node'
Name of the function is wrong.

I will fix the name of function.  The type of returned value is clear 
from the function definition.

quoted

+ * @adev: ACPI device in question
+ */
+struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev)
  {
         struct mutex *physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock;
+       struct device *node = NULL;

         mutex_lock(physical_node_lock);
-       if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
-               adev = NULL;
-       } else {
-               const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;

+       if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list))
                 node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
-                                       struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
-               if (node->dev != dev)
-                       adev = NULL;
-       }
+                               struct acpi_device_physical_node, node)->dev;

I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function
returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *.

Currently the name is not aligned with returned value.

It is aligned with the returned value (but not with the type of returned 
value).  So I would prefer to leave it as is.

Thank you for review.
Aleksey Makarov

quoted

+
         mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock);
-       return adev;
+
+       return node;
+}