On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I can take that fix to my tree and rebase my patch on top of it.
