[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121116124949.GQ17774@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:49:49 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
khali@...ux-fr.org, ben-linux@...ff.org, w.sang@...gutronix.de,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] gpio / ACPI: add ACPI support
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:02:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:12:46 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:05:49AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > >
> > > One more thing, sometimes we want to assign the handle like in the case of
> > > SPI controller driver we set the master->dev.acpi_handle. In that case we
> > > can't use DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE() as is. Should we just do something like:
> > >
> > > master->dev.acpi_handle = pdev->dev.acpi_handle;
> > >
> > > or should we introduce some new macro that supports this?
> >
> > Or we could just drop the cast from the macro and use the same.
> >
> > #define DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(dev) ((dev)->acpi_handle)
>
> Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's better to add a new macro, like
> ACPI_HANDLE(dev), defined as above and use it going forward (we can then
> phase out the old one gradually).
Yeah, that sounds good.
> However, let's leave the patches in this series as they are for now, we can
> add that macro in a separate patch later.
OK.
--
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