Hi,
On 20-01-17 11:42, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:18:29AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 20-01-17 10:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 10:48 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
I'm fine with doing a v3 with a comment, how about putting that
comment
right at all the module* stuff and explain there that that is to
stay as the builtin only status is meant to be temporary ?
Can we do other way around? I mean that either i915 selects PWM_LPSS to
be built-in, or uses request_module() call?
PWM_LPSS needs to be built-in if enabled, a stripped down kernel
for non cherrytrail hardware does not need it ...
Also (and esp for request_module) this means building knowledge
into the i915 driver about which pwm hardware there is on which
boards which is undesirable.
Thierry, this does give me an idea though, what if we extend
the info passed to pwm_add_table with a module-name and
make pwm_get call request_module() ?
I'm not sure that's even necessary. request_module() forwards the string
you pass to it to the userspace helper, so you can pass things like the
modalias to it. I suspect that for ACPI the modalias could be trivially
derived from the provider name already in the table.
As you can see in the patch-set I've just send I've chosen to go with the
module_name in pwm_lookup. You're right that simply doing:
module_request("acpi:%s", chosen->provider);
Would work, but I don't like having the "acpi:%s" bit in the pwm-core,
esp. not since someone will them come along and add support for i2c.
pci, etc. So just adding a module_name field seems saner.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
