Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] dmi: Introduce dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:35 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:59:20PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > It's used in several places and more users may come.
>> > By using this helper they may create a slightly cleaner code.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  include/linux/dmi.h | 7 +++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/dmi.h b/include/linux/dmi.h
>> > index 46e151172d95..241c27008c70 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/dmi.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/dmi.h
>> > @@ -147,4 +147,11 @@ static inline const struct dmi_system_id *
>> >
>> >  #endif
>> >
>> > +static inline int dmi_get_bios_year(void)
>> > +{
>> > +   int year;
>> > +   dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL);
>> > +   return year;
>> > +}
>>
>> I don't really care personally, and I assume this series will go via a
>> non-PCI tree, but making this inline looks similar to this, which
>> wasn't well-received:
>>
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFypU331cQy-
>> 6ZJ6szF=2KVLqcbwCUGd+gTwPViRqRWN+g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Yes, that header file is already full of random inline functions, but
> they are generally wrapper functions that don't really do anything, ..."
>
> I think the function above is exactly from the "wrapper that doesn't
> really do anything" category.

Yes, but honestly does it need to be inline even so?

Why don't you simply put the wrapper into dmi_scan.c and export it?