On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:56 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 02:39:30PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 1:38 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:16 AM Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > static int acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > > > > const char *propname, const char *nargs_prop, > > > > > unsigned int args_count, unsigned int index, > > > > > > > > const struct acpi_device_data *data; > > > > > struct fwnode_handle *ref_fwnode; > > > > > struct acpi_device *device; > > > > > + unsigned int nargs_count; > > > > > int ret, idx = 0; > > > > > > > > + nargs_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop); > > > > > > > > I think it should work the same way as it used to for the callers that > > > > pass args_count, so maybe > > > > > > > > if (!args_count) > > > > args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop); > > > > > > But this is different variable. > > > > Of course it is different. It is an acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args() parameter. > > > > > > > element++; > > > > > - > > > > > ret = acpi_get_ref_args(idx == index ? args : NULL, > > > > > acpi_fwnode_handle(device), > > > > > - &element, end, args_count); > > > > > + &element, end, > > > > > + nargs_count ? nargs_count : args_count); > > > > > > > > And this change would not be necessary? > > > > > > This is not the same check as proposed above. > > > > No, it is not. > > > > It just makes the function work the same way it did before the change > > for the callers who passed nozero args_count and so they might be > > forgiven expecting that it would be taken into account. > > I see your point now. But do we have such a user? I dunno. Well, __acpi_node_get_property_reference() gets called in a couple of places.
