On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:15:05PM -0400, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > > Using platform_data would no be helpful, because there is no platform > > code to fill that out on ACPI based systems. > Right. So the question is how do we work around the "mbox->dev" and > "client->dev" expectations in the Mailbox framework for PCC, given > that these tables aren't backed by "struct devices" ? As previously suggested just looking things up in the context of a device created to represent the PCC controller seems fine; clients know they're using PCC so can just call a PCC specific API which hides the mechanics from them (for example, using a global variable to store the device).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
