Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

2021-03-08 Thread Jiri Kosina
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Andy Shevchenko 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.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

2021-03-01 Thread Andy Shevchenko
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 > > wrote: > > > > > > The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same. > > > Otherwise a compiler may produce a

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

2021-03-01 Thread Jiri Kosina
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

2021-03-01 Thread Benjamin Tissoires
Hi, On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko 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. > >

[PATCH v2 4/4] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

2021-02-26 Thread Andy Shevchenko
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 --- v2: no changes