On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:05:09 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +/* Flags for acpi_create_platform_device */
> > +#define ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK BIT(0)
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * The following ACPI IDs are known to be suitable for representing as
> > + * platform devices.
> > + */
> > +static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_platform_device_ids[] = {
> > +
> > + { "PNP0D40" },
> > +
> > + /* Haswell LPSS devices */
> > + { "INT33C0", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C1", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C2", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C3", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C4", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C5", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C6", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > + { "INT33C7", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> > +
> > + { }
> > +};
>
> Now that we have everything the platform support code needs in a single
> file, should we instead of setting flags and comparing strings like
> "INT33C" to find out are we running on Lynxpoint, pass function pointer
> that gets called when corresponding device gets created? Something like:
>
> { "INT33C0", lpt_clks_init },
> ...
>
> Or do you think we need to keep the flags still?
>
> I can prepare a patch if this turns out to be sensible thing to do.
Well, if we can reduce the code size this way, please send a patch.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
