[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091022174304.GO26149@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:43:04 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
To: Crane Cai <crane.cai@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-scmi: Quirk to work on IBM machines with broken
BIOSes
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:17:53PM +0800, Crane Cai wrote:
> This patch below represents my meanings:
> *) add a new HID for IBM SMBus CMI devices
> *) add methods for IBM SMBus CMI devices as you did
> *) hook different HID with different control methods set
> It may be more smooth for i2c-scmi, please consider.
Looks fine to me.
I still need the changes to drivers/acpi/scan.c, but if you push this patch
upstream then I'll reroll my patch as a follow-on to yours...
> static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_smbus_cmi_ids[] = {
> - {"SMBUS01", 0},
> + {"SMBUS01", (kernel_ulong_t)&smbus_methods},
> + {"SMBUSIBM", (kernel_ulong_t)&ibm_smbus_methods},
...with the custom HID string #define'd in a header file someplace.
Actually, if you'll add a Signed-off-by line to your patch, I'll submit both of
them as a patchset and save you a little work. :)
> + for (; id->id[0]; id++)
Stylistic nit--would it be clearer to initialize id in the for loop instead of
at the beginning of the function?
--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists