On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Based on this patch-set, all the I/O accesses to Hip06/Hip07 LPC >>>>> peripherals can >>>>> be supported without any changes on the existing ipmi-si driver. >>>>> >>>>> The whole patchset has been tested on Hip07 D05 board both using DTB >>>>> and ACPI. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> V15 thread here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/26/584 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for an update. >>>> Though I answered to previous thread. >>>> >>>> Summary: I'm fine with the series as long as maintainers are fine >>>> (Rafael et al.). On personal side I think that the handler approach is >>>> better. Details are in v15 thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks for your input and continued support. As I mentioned in reply in >>> v15, >>> the handler support would (or has) faced issues. And Rafael seems fine >>> with >>> deferring the probe to the LLDD in Patch #7/9 >> >> > > Hi Rafael, > >> Well, the only sort-of concern is that these devices may not be >> "serial bus slaves" in general, so the naming is slightly confusing. >> > > Right, the name. > > The key point is that we model the bus the same as other serial buses like > I2C or SPI, so require the same treatment from the ACPI scan. > > Would you prefer acpi_is_serial_bus_slave() and > acpi_device_flags.serial_bus_slave symbols be modified also? Yeah, preferably. You can rename them to acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() and acpi_device_flags.enumeration_by_parent, respectively, as far as I'm concerned. At least the names would match the purpose then. :-) And please update the comment in acpi_default_enumeration() while at it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
