On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/07/2022 12:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/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. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
