Re: [PATCH v1 05/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Split acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi()

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:55 PM lihuisong (C) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/2026 8:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Move individual _LPI state package processing from
> > acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() to a separate new function
> > called process_lpi_state_package().
> >
> > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >   1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > index cd506e9e5a84..771a7bd6fb73 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > @@ -869,6 +869,90 @@ static int obj_get_integer(union acpi_object *obj, u32 *value)
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > +static void process_lpi_state_package(union acpi_object *lpi_pkg,
> > +                                   struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi_state,
> > +                                   acpi_handle handle,
> > +                                   unsigned int state_idx)
> > +{
> > +     union acpi_object *lpi_pkg_elem, *obj;
> > +
> process_lpi_state_package-->acpi_processor_parse_lpi_state_package?

I don't think so

The name doesn't need to be so long and it is a static function.

> Others look good to me.
> Acked-by: Huisong Li <[email protected]>

Thanks, but is the ACK applicable given the above?