On 2015/12/1 20:58, Lukas Wunner wrote: > Hi Hanjun Guo, > > thank you for taking a look at the patches. > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:27:23PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> If the driver can't pass the "dev" as the argument form acpi device or >> platform device, this is the way to match HIDs. >> >> But if we get the pointer to acpi device or platform device structure >> before calling this function, I think acpi_match_device_ids() can match >> what you need, and we don't need to invent another function. > Of the 7 users, > > * 4 detect the presence of a particular HID to activate platform- > specific quirks (acer-wmi.c, eeepc-wmi.c, thinkpad_helper.c, > cht_bsw_max98090_ti.c). The drivers never obtain a pointer to the > struct acpi_device. This is also the reason why I need to detect > the presence of apple-gmux in several DRM drivers, to activate > quirks specific to MacBook Pros with dual GPUs, and the one thing > they have in common is the presence of the gmux controller. > The DRM drivers likewise never have a need to hold a pointer to > apple-gmux' struct acpi_device. > > * 2 detect the presence of a particular HID and *afterwards* > instantiate a platform_device (atom/sst/sst_acpi.c and > common/sst-acpi.c). So we can't use acpi_match_device_ids() > there either. > > * 1 is a driver for a platform_device (cht_bsw_rt5645.c) which was > instantiated by atom/sst/sst_acpi.c. The driver is responsible > for two chips and differentiates between the two by detecting the > presence of a particular HID. It would be possible to refactor the > code so that atom/sst/sst_acpi.c passes down the matched HID to > cht_bsw_rt5645.c, then it wouldn't be necessary to match for a > second time. Also, the only difference between the two chipsets > seems to be a minute change in struct snd_soc_dapm_route, so I'm > wondering if it's necessary to differentiate between the chipsets > at all. Mark Brown may want to poke the developers of the driver to > refactor the code. > > TL;DR: 6 of the 7 users can't use acpi_match_device_ids() and the > 7th could be refactored so that it doesn't have to detect the presence > of a specific HID at all. Thanks for the clarify, in this case, this patch makes sense to me. Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> Hanjun -- 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
