[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hoO6FPLcXf617Y52ePvRAea0JZcqLoqPeVQ4sL8Mib4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 20:16:48 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child()
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
> > On 01/07/2022 12:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 30/06/2022 19:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >>> However Yang Yingliang spotted a pre-existing bug in the ACPI probe and
> > >>> sent a fix today (coincidence?):
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220701094352.2104998-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/T/#u
> > >>>
> > >>> And they conflict. This code has been this way for years, so I just
> > >>> suggest Yang Yingliang resends the fix on top off Rafael's change.
> > >>
> > >> Wondering if Yang can actually switch that to use
> > >> platform_device_register_full().
> >
> > Maybe that would work and simplify things. Let me check it.
> >
> > BTW, when we originally upstreamed this driver there was some ACPI
> > platform device registration code which you/we thought could be factored
> > out later. I can't remember it. I was looking through lore but couldn't
> > find it. I don't remember it being so important, though.
>
> My suggestion is definitely not for the fix itself, but as a follow up.
>
> > > And for the record, I think the Fixes even for very rare bug hits
> > > should go first.
> >
> > ok, I have to admit that I was going to feel awkward asking Rafael to
> > deal with this fix by having a v4 on top of it.
>
> I don't think it's a problem as long as we have an immutable branch /
> tag with that patch. Another approach could be that Rafael can take it
> as a precursor for his series and route via ACPI tree, but let's hear
> what he thinks about this himself.
I can take that fix to my tree and rebase my patch on top of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists