On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:23:45PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 10/28/2013 05:06 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >Indeed. The way I initially read the suggestion above the idea was to > >replace the bus number with the ACPI name for the device which seemed > >sensible but now I reread the bus number is still there. > Sorry, my textual proposal above was confusing and should have used > different variables for ACPI name. What I meant was "spix.y" -> > "spi-INTABCD:ij" and "x-00yz" to "i2c-INTABCD:ij" where "INTABCD:ij" > was the ACPI device name which contains the device instance in "ij". Ah, OK - it's actually what I read it as in the first place then!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
