From 904aaf8050439510fb48cafb26a91034b0e7e615 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Al Stone Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:39:05 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / tables: improve comments regarding acpi_parse_entries_array() I found the description of the table_size argument to the function acpi_parse_entries_array() unclear and ambiguous. This is a minor documentation change to improve that description so I don't misuse the argument again in the future, and it is hopefully clearer to other future users. Signed-off-by: Al Stone [ rjw: Subject ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/acpi/tables.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c index 849c4fb19b03..4a3410aa6540 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header) * acpi_parse_entries_array - for each proc_num find a suitable subtable * * @id: table id (for debugging purposes) - * @table_size: single entry size + * @table_size: size of the root table * @table_header: where does the table start? * @proc: array of acpi_subtable_proc struct containing entry id * and associated handler with it @@ -233,6 +233,11 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header) * on it. Assumption is that there's only single handler for particular * entry id. * + * The table_size is not the size of the complete ACPI table (the length + * field in the header struct), but only the size of the root table; i.e., + * the offset from the very first byte of the complete ACPI table, to the + * first byte of the very first subtable. + * * On success returns sum of all matching entries for all proc handlers. * Otherwise, -ENODEV or -EINVAL is returned. */ @@ -400,7 +405,7 @@ int __init acpi_table_parse(char *id, acpi_tbl_table_handler handler) return -ENODEV; } -/* +/* * The BIOS is supposed to supply a single APIC/MADT, * but some report two. Provide a knob to use either. * (don't you wish instance 0 and 1 were not the same?)