On Monday, April 01, 2013 12:44:23 PM Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:21:08AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The ACPI handle of struct spi_master's dev member should not be > > set, because this causes that struct spi_master to be associated > > with the ACPI device node corresponding to its parent as the > > second "physical_device", which is incorrect (this happens during > > the registration of struct spi_master). Consequently, > > acpi_register_spi_devices() should use the ACPI handle of the > > parent of the struct spi_master it is called for rather than that > > struct spi_master's ACPI handle (which should be NULL). > > Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > or does this need to be applied to the SPI tree? I can push it through the PM/ACPI tree along with an analogous I2C 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
