[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60312890-cd5e-840e-8c71-2d7876542650@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:38:29 +0100
From: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, lee.jones@...aro.org,
sre@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add
Hi Prashant,
On 10/2/20 17:32, Prashant Malani wrote:
> Hi Enric,
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 02:11 Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com
> <mailto:enric.balletbo@...labora.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Prashant,
>
> On 27/1/20 15:50, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > Hi Prashant,
> >
> > On 25/1/20 0:18, Prashant Malani wrote:
> >> Add a check to ensure there is indeed an EC device tree entry before
> >> adding the cros-usbpd-notify device. This covers configs where both
> >> CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_OF are defined, but the EC device is defined
> >> using device tree and not in ACPI.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org
> <mailto:pmalani@...omium.org>>
> >
> > With this change, an playing with different CONFIG_ACPI + CONFIG_OF
> combinations
> > I don't see anymore the problem where the driver is registered twice on
> > CONFIG_ACPI side. So,
> >
> > Tested-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com
> <mailto:enric.balletbo@...labora.com>>
> >
> > Maybe it requires a fixes tag if Lee already picked the other patch?
> >
> > Fixes: 4602dce0361e ("mfd: cros_ec: Add cros-usbpd-notify subdevice")
> >
>
> Now that v7 from mfd side was merged and v8 from platform side was merged, could
> you resend this specific patch alone collecting all the fixes and tested tags. I
> guess will be more clear for mfd people.
>
>
> Sounds good. Should I maintain the same versioning and series info i.e v9 3/4?
> Or just v9?
>
I'd do "[PATCH RESEND] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add" and
then after the "---" explain that you are resending this alone because the other
patches are already applied, and reference this patch series.
> Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
> Enric
>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes in v8:
> >> - Patch first introduced in v8 of the series.
> >>
> >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> >> index d0c28a4c10ad0..411e80fc9a066 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> >> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> * explicitly added on platforms that don't have the PD notifier ACPI
> >> * device entry defined.
> >> */
> >> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) {
> >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && ec->ec_dev->dev->of_node) {
> >> if (cros_ec_check_features(ec, EC_FEATURE_USB_PD)) {
> >> retval = mfd_add_hotplug_devices(ec->dev,
> >> cros_usbpd_notify_cells,
> >>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists