Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Provide !ACPI stub for acpi_device_uid()

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 22/09/2026 12:40 pm, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 5:27 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the likes of acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() and acpi_dev_uid_match()
>> already have stubs for !ACPI, the basic acpi_device_uid() getter does
>> not. As with acpi_device_hid(), add one for the convenience of portable
>> drivers who just want the string itself - in fact they are so much alike
>> that we can simply alias the exact same stub definition.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> index 1a45e0d521d8..ed309ea4785d 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
>> @@ -963,6 +963,7 @@ static inline const char *acpi_device_hid(struct acpi_device *device)
>>   {
>>          return "";
>>   }
>> +#define acpi_device_uid acpi_device_hid
>>
>>   static inline bool
>>   acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld)
>> --
> 
> Sashiko has reservations that look valid:
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/513319f19ed6b0b6d4c76dc517074531966b98f5.1789745223.git.robin.murphy%40arm.com

Oops, indeed apparently I missed that acpi_device_pnp::unique_id isn't 
actually const - it probably should be IMO, but that would be a whole 
other patch.

FWIW I can't see that the return value itself actually matters here 
since !ACPI code couldn't have a valid acpi_device to legitimately call 
this with at runtime. In fact even for compile-testing, references 
should usually be under a condition like has_acpi_companion() which 
would lead to them getting DCE's under !ACPI without needing the stub - 
this was really just for completeness to shut up annoying Sashiko noise 
on that point.

Thanks,
Robin.