[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACeCKacwg2gapH7MjByg76qrbh0CvQJ9tftr+ot+NzrMUjXGKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:59:54 -0800
From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
To: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:POWER SUPPLY CLASS/SUBSYSTEM and DRIVERS"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] mfd: cros_ec: Check DT node for usbpd-notify add
Hi Enric,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:38 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
<enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Got it. Will re-send across the patch now.
Thanks!
>
> > 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