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

On 7/16/2026 8:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> 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?
ok