Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list()

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:23:37PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > 'data' here is private to the caller.ÂÂSo, I do not think we need
> > > to define the bits.ÂÂShall I change the name to 'driver_data' to
> > > make it more explicit?
> > 
> > You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean
> > is_critical_error before.
> > 
> > So you can just as well make it into flags and people can extend
> > those flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in most cases
> > anyway. If they really need driver_data, then they can add a void *
> > member.
> 
> Hmm.. In patch 2, intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists() uses this
> field for PSS and PCC, which are enum values.  I think we should allow
> drivers to set any values here.  I agree that it may need to be void *
> if we also allow drivers to set a pointer here.

Let's see what Rafael prefers.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.