While the likes of acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() and acpi_dev_uid_match()
already have stubs for !ACPI, the basic acpi_device_uid() getter does
not. As with acpi_device_hid(), add one for the convenience of portable
drivers who just want the string itself - in fact they are so much alike
that we can simply alias the exact same stub definition.

Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
---
 include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
index 1a45e0d521d8..ed309ea4785d 100644
--- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
+++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
@@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static inline const char *acpi_device_hid(struct acpi_device *device)
 {
 	return "";
 }
+#define acpi_device_uid acpi_device_hid
 
 static inline bool
 acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld)
-- 
2.54.0.dirty

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 5:27 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> While the likes of acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() and acpi_dev_uid_match()
> already have stubs for !ACPI, the basic acpi_device_uid() getter does
> not. As with acpi_device_hid(), add one for the convenience of portable
> drivers who just want the string itself - in fact they are so much alike
> that we can simply alias the exact same stub definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> ---
>  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> index 1a45e0d521d8..ed309ea4785d 100644
> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> @@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static inline const char *acpi_device_hid(struct acpi_device *device)
>  {
>         return "";
>  }
> +#define acpi_device_uid acpi_device_hid
>
>  static inline bool
>  acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld)
> --

Sashiko has reservations that look valid:

https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/513319f19ed6b0b6d4c76dc517074531966b98f5.1789745223.git.robin.murphy%40arm.com

On 22/09/2026 12:40 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 5:27 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the likes of acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() and acpi_dev_uid_match()
>> already have stubs for !ACPI, the basic acpi_device_uid() getter does
>> not. As with acpi_device_hid(), add one for the convenience of portable
>> drivers who just want the string itself - in fact they are so much alike
>> that we can simply alias the exact same stub definition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> index 1a45e0d521d8..ed309ea4785d 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> @@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static inline const char *acpi_device_hid(struct acpi_device *device)
>>   {
>>          return "";
>>   }
>> +#define acpi_device_uid acpi_device_hid
>>
>>   static inline bool
>>   acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld)
>> --
> 
> Sashiko has reservations that look valid:
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/513319f19ed6b0b6d4c76dc517074531966b98f5.1789745223.git.robin.murphy%40arm.com

Oops, indeed apparently I missed that acpi_device_pnp::unique_id isn't 
actually const - it probably should be IMO, but that would be a whole 
other patch.

FWIW I can't see that the return value itself actually matters here 
since !ACPI code couldn't have a valid acpi_device to legitimately call 
this with at runtime. In fact even for compile-testing, references 
should usually be under a condition like has_acpi_companion() which 
would lead to them getting DCE's under !ACPI without needing the stub - 
this was really just for completeness to shut up annoying Sashiko noise 
on that point.

Thanks,
Robin.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 5:17 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 22/09/2026 12:40 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 5:27 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> While the likes of acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() and acpi_dev_uid_match()
> >> already have stubs for !ACPI, the basic acpi_device_uid() getter does
> >> not. As with acpi_device_hid(), add one for the convenience of portable
> >> drivers who just want the string itself - in fact they are so much alike
> >> that we can simply alias the exact same stub definition.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >>   include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> >> index 1a45e0d521d8..ed309ea4785d 100644
> >> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> >> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> >> @@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static inline const char *acpi_device_hid(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>   {
> >>          return "";
> >>   }
> >> +#define acpi_device_uid acpi_device_hid
> >>
> >>   static inline bool
> >>   acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld)
> >> --
> >
> > Sashiko has reservations that look valid:
> >
> > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/513319f19ed6b0b6d4c76dc517074531966b98f5.1789745223.git.robin.murphy%40arm.com
>
> Oops, indeed apparently I missed that acpi_device_pnp::unique_id isn't
> actually const - it probably should be IMO, but that would be a whole
> other patch.
>
> FWIW I can't see that the return value itself actually matters here
> since !ACPI code couldn't have a valid acpi_device to legitimately call
> this with at runtime. In fact even for compile-testing, references
> should usually be under a condition like has_acpi_companion() which
> would lead to them getting DCE's under !ACPI without needing the stub -
> this was really just for completeness to shut up annoying Sashiko noise
> on that point.

But I think that returning NULL in the !ACPI case would be more
consistent with the ACPI case anyway.