linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] leds: pca963x: Add ACPI support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <f8f27d71-c8ef-4efd-6cf4-d3c1ec60ff88@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:34:46 +0100
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:     Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@....com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Loc Ho <lho@....com>, Thang Nguyen <tqnguyen@....com>,
        Phong Vo <pvo@....com>, patches <patches@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] leds: pca963x: Add ACPI support

Hi Tin,

On 11/29/2016 03:47 PM, Tin Huynh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2016 11:21 AM, Tin Huynh wrote:
>>>> This patch enables ACPI support for leds-pca963x driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c |   25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Change from V1:
>>>>   -Add CONFIG_ACPI.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c
>>>> index 407eba1..57f11e3 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c
>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>>>   * or by adding the 'nxp,hw-blink' property to the DTS.
>>>>   */
>>>>
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/module.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/string.h>
>>>> @@ -95,6 +96,17 @@ struct pca963x_chipdef {
>>>>  };
>>>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pca963x_id);
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +static const struct acpi_device_id pca963x_acpi_ids[] = {
>>>> +   { "PCA9632", pca9633 },
>>>> +   { "PCA9633", pca9633 },
>>>> +   { "PCA9634", pca9634 },
>>>> +   { "PCA9635", pca9635 },
>>>> +   { }
>>>> +};
>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, pca963x_acpi_ids);
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>  struct pca963x_led;
>>>>
>>>>  struct pca963x {
>>>> @@ -322,7 +334,17 @@ static int pca963x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>>     struct pca963x_chipdef *chip;
>>>>     int i, err;
>>>>
>>>> -   chip = &pca963x_chipdefs[id->driver_data];
>>>> +   if (id) {
>>>> +           chip = &pca963x_chipdefs[id->driver_data];
>>>> +   } else {
>>>> +           const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id;
>>>> +
>>>> +           acpi_id = acpi_match_device(ACPI_PTR(pca963x_acpi_ids),
>>>> +                                           &client->dev);
>>>
>>> What kind of problem did you get while compiling without ACPI_PTR here,
>>> when CONFIG_ACPI is disabled? I also tried this configuration but
>>> nothing wrong happened. Also at first glance I don't see why lack of
>>> ACPI_PTR macro could cause problems.
>>>
>>> Grep also doesn't show any call to acpi_match_device
>>> with ACPI_PTR as the first argument in the existing drivers.
>>
>> Indeed, that is not needed at all.
> Sorry about that . The PATCH V1 should work fine both with or without
> CONFIG_ACPI.
> So V1 should be better . Please ignore PATCH V2

Reapplied V1.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski