Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

acpi_spmc(4): Rename functions parsing constraints
ClosedPublic

Authored by olce on Mon, May 4, 8:32 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, May 17, 11:49 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, May 14, 3:04 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, May 14, 4:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, May 14, 1:29 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, May 11, 11:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, May 11, 12:16 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, May 10, 8:26 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, May 10, 2:52 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Rename acpi_spmc_get_constraints_intel() and
acpi_spmc_get_constraints_amd() ("get" => "parse") to reflect that they
are actually just parsing the constraints passed by
acpi_spmc_get_constraints().

No functional change (intended).

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

olce requested review of this revision.Mon, May 4, 8:32 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, May 7, 2:35 AM

(Context impact, nothing really changed.)

This revision now requires review to proceed.Thu, May 7, 7:57 PM

I mean, technically these functions aren't just parsing the constraints, they're also getting them... I don't know if I agree with this change

I mean, technically these functions aren't just parsing the constraints, they're also getting them... I don't know if I agree with this change

Maybe it's a question of words, but these functions do not "get" them in the sense they query the firmware, that is done only at start of acpi_spmc_get_constraints(), they just interpret/parse the result, building our own internal structures.

I mean, technically these functions aren't just parsing the constraints, they're also getting them... I don't know if I agree with this change

Maybe it's a question of words, but these functions do not "get" them in the sense they query the firmware, that is done only at start of acpi_spmc_get_constraints(), they just interpret/parse the result, building our own internal structures.

Ah no you are totally right. We are passing the object. I have no idea why I thought this function was the one getting the object too.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, May 11, 11:27 AM

(Context impacts, no real changes.)

This revision now requires review to proceed.Tue, May 12, 1:29 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Tue, May 12, 2:05 PM