[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160503121954.GQ6292@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:19:54 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/10] spi: add support for ACPI reconfigure
notifications
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:37:57PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > There's more code here now than I remember but this all looks *really*
> > close to the DT code except for the OF_POPULATED flag that we set when
> > things are instantiated in DT. The duplication seems bad but the fact
> > that we're missing the flag worries me... do we have guarantees that
> > ACPI won't double register?
> We use the adev->flags.visited to check when a device has been already
> enumerated, and we skip registering a new SPI slave in that case.
OK, but the fact that I need to know that isn't exactly thrilling -
that's really the issue with the not quite duplication here. It's not
just if the code works but also the maintainability.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists