On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 04:34:41PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same. > > > Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning. > > > > > > That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or > > > none should be used in a driver. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > > > > Thanks a lot for the series. This indeed cleans things up. > > Indeed, thanks. > > > For the series: > > Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoi...@redhat.com> > > > > Jiri, I wonder where we want to land this one. This is not strictly > > bug fixes, but we could definitively sneak this one in 5.12-rc1. > > Well, I should probably run the series on an acpi laptop here before > > merging, but I'd like to know if delaying to 5.13 is OK or if we need > > this in 5.12. > > I'd like to do it the standard way and have it bake in for-next to see if > it really doesn't break anything, so unless there are convicing arguments > for 5.12-rcX, I'd rathre queue this for 5.13.
For the record, I'm not in hurry with this, up to you how to proceed. Thanks! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
