On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:39:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Do we really ever pass anything other than struct acpi_device to
> ACPI_COMPANION_SET() as the second arg?
No, and we should not accept anything else than acpi_device either.
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
> >
> > Due to commit db3e50f3234b ("device property: Get rid of struct
> > fwnode_handle type field"), ACPI_HANDLE() inadvertentl
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:35:27PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Hubbard
>
> 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
Hi John,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:35:27PM -0700, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: John Hubbard
>
> 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:
>
> A
From: John Hubbard
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(
5 matches
Mail list logo