On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:10:20 +0200 , "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:08:59 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > This is version 6 of the unified device properties interface patchset. > > > > The original cover letter from Mika is here: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=141087052200600&w=4 > > > > and my cover letters for previous iterations are at: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141212903816560&w=4 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141354745011569&w=4 > > > > There are a few changes with respect to v5 and the affected patches are > > [02-03/12] and [09-12/12]. The remaining ones have not been modified. > > > > Most importantly, requesting the first element of a list (package) property > > from _DSD is now equivalent to accessing a single-value property of the > > same type, so device_property_read_u8(dev, pname, val) will now be equivalent > > to device_property_read_u8_array(dev, pname, val, 1), for example. > > Consequently, this _DSD definition: > > > > Name (_DSD, Package () { > > ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"), > > Package () { > > Package () {"blah", "A string"}, > > } > > }) > > > > can be used instead of > > > > Name (_DSD, Package () { > > ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"), > > Package () { > > Package () {"blah", Package () {"A string"}}, > > } > > }) > > > > and the code will be able to retrieve the property value from the both of > > them just fine. > > > > This means, among other things, that accessors for single-value properties > > can be implemented in terms of the analogous "array" property accessors > > which allows the code size to be reduced somewhat. > > > > Patches [02/12] and [09/12] have been modified to achieve that and patch > > [03/12] have been modified accordingly for the "compatible" property in > > _DSD to behave in an analogous way. Additionally, the bodies of the > > numerical property accessors in patches [02/12] and [09/12] are now > > generated using macros (string property accessors have slightly different > > rules and are simply open coded for that reason). > > > > Patch [10/12] has been modified to drop function arguments that happened to > > have the same values for both of the current users of those functions and > > patches [11-12/12] have been modified to take that change into account. If > > the code in question needs to be made more complex in the future, there > > should not be any problems with that. > > > > Due to the nature of the changes I have retained all ACKs except for the > > Grant's Reviewed-by on patch [03/12] (if that had been Acked-by, I would have > > retained it too, but that didn't feel appropriate for the "reviewed by" thing > > to me). If any of you think that the ACKs are not applicable any more, please > > let me know and I'll drop them. > > > > Finally, many thanks to Mika for testing the series on MinnowBoard 1 and > > MinnowBoard Max. In case anybody else would like to test it, it is available > > from the device-properties branch of the linux-pm.git tree: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git device-properties > > > > Thanks! > > Crickets ... > > OK, so I'm taking the lack of comments as the lack of objections and I'm already > getting merge conflicts for this series. Moreover, we already have done some > work on top of it. > > So, if there still are no comments by Sunday evening, I'll add this series to > my linux-next branch with 3.19-rc1 as the target. Aside from the comments I've made elsewhere, you can add my acked by for the whole series. Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> g. -- 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
