Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Drop wrong use of ACPI_PTR()

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 20:45:01 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:45:35PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu,  3 Feb 2022 17:59:18 +0200
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > ACPI_PTR() is more harmful than helpful. For example, in this case
> > > if CONFIG_ACPI=n, the ID table left unused which is not what we want.
> > > 
> > > Instead of adding ifdeffery or attribute here and there, drop ACPI_PTR().
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 3b3870646642 ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Mark acpi match table as maybe unused")
> > > Fixes: fd64df16f40e ("iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: Add SPI support for MPU6000")
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> > 
> > Hi Andy,
> > 
> > Whilst I fully support tidying this up, what is 'fixing' as such?
> > Will get rid of an unused warning for the spi case but that sort
> > of things doesn't always get fixes tags.  
> 
> True, however I can find a handful examples when this kind of patches were backported.
> 
> > They tend to result
> > in backports and I wouldn't think it was worth backporting this
> > unless I'm missing something...  
> 
> It's not critical, so can you drop the tags when applying, if you think that's
> okay?
> 
Sure.  I've dropped the Fixes tags and applied the series.

Thanks,

Jonathan