[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i1qO+jBWjypEcwJAkajSedqHJA4iyHiazNz7QT62mKLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:28:27 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>,
"Voss, Dr. Nikolaus" <Nikolaus.Dr.Voss@...wensteinmedical.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>,
Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@...adcom.com>,
Vikram Prakash <vikram.prakash@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
nv@...n.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI: bus: match of_device_id using acpi device
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Nikolaus Voss
> <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On 04/07/18 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Srinath Mannam
>>>> <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> +1 on NACK for this and anything else that abuse PRP0001 as a short cut
>>> approach.
>> This is no abuse but exactly what PRP0001 is meant for. The basic idea of
>> PRP0001 is to reuse DT "compatible" strings in ACPI namespace, see
>> Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt. Reusing also means getting access to the
>> of_device_id.
>
> The idea was for almost DIY and / or manufacturer to develop a
> prototype without modifying match code and faking ACPI IDs.
> That's why the target of PRP0001 is almost sensors connected to I2C and SPI.
>
> That's why I agreed on your patch to help with this. But! The proper
> solution for the devices (device manufacturer) is to allocate an ACPI
> ID and provide a corresponding table to the driver.
>
> This is my understanding of that exercise. Rafael can correct me.
You are right.
>> Allocating an ACPI id for an already existing DT driver is redundant, isn't
>> it?
>
> It is not.
Again, right.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists