meh not really worth fixing, but since you already wrote the diff
ok kettenis@ > Op 28-06-2022 07:23 schreef Anton Lindqvist <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > A com_acpi_softc pointer is used as the interrupt callback cookie which > is later on interpreted as a com_softc pointer. This is not a problem in > practice as a com_softc structure is the first member of the > com_acpi_softc structure. > > Using the actual types consistently yields a better symmetry in my > opinion between registering the interrupt and the corresponding > interrupt handler. > > Comments? OK? > > diff --git sys/dev/acpi/com_acpi.c sys/dev/acpi/com_acpi.c > index 9c1e4af0426..b9f2a14edd3 100644 > --- sys/dev/acpi/com_acpi.c > +++ sys/dev/acpi/com_acpi.c > @@ -159,9 +159,9 @@ com_acpi_is_designware(const char *hid) > int > com_acpi_intr_designware(void *cookie) > { > - struct com_softc *sc = cookie; > + struct com_acpi_softc *sc = cookie; > > - com_read_reg(sc, com_usr); > + com_read_reg(&sc->sc, com_usr); > > - return comintr(sc); > + return comintr(&sc->sc); > }
