Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.

Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
 		return;
 
-	acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
+	acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
 			    acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);
 
 	mutex_lock(&acpi_gpio_deferred_req_irqs_lock);
-- 
2.22.0

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>                 return;
>
> -       acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
> +       acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
>                             acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);

This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag?

That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly).

Bart

>
>         mutex_lock(&acpi_gpio_deferred_req_irqs_lock);
> --
> 2.22.0
>

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >                 return;
> >
> > -       acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
> > +       acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
> >                             acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);
> 
> This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag?

This means "for Linux next cycle". It has roots in the net subsystem where
it's a requirement to mark each patch either net or net-next, because they
have a huge traffic of patches.

> That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly).

I think I will take it. Care to provide your tag?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:48 AM Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Using the METHOD_NAME__AEI macro instead of using "_AEI" directly.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiang Yang <xiangyang3@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > > index a7d2358736fe..064ba5150fd4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ void acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> > >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > > -       acpi_walk_resources(handle, "_AEI",
> > > +       acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__AEI,
> > >                             acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event, acpi_gpio);
> >
> > This line dates back to 2018 so why -next in your PATCH tag?
>
> This means "for Linux next cycle". It has roots in the net subsystem where
> it's a requirement to mark each patch either net or net-next, because they
> have a huge traffic of patches.
>
> > That being said - patch applied (unless Andy wants to take it directly).
>
> I think I will take it. Care to provide your tag?
>

Just take it, I will back it out.

Bartosz

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:30:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 3:51 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > I think I will take it. Care to provide your tag?
> 
> Just take it, I will back it out.

Pushed to my review and testing queue, thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko