On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > thanks a lot for your patience. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:59:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 01:12:29 PM Darren Hart wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 09:49:41PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: >> > > Hi Darren, >> > > >> > > the acpi_dev_present() API has now landed in Linus' tree. >> > > Thus, after Linus' tree gets merged back into yours, >> > > it would be possible to use the API in the pdx86 drivers >> > > as per the following patches. >> > > >> > > I've also pushed these to GitHub in case anyone prefers >> > > perusing them in a browser: >> > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/acpi_dev_present_pdx86 >> > > >> > > This is a repost of patches submitted in November, the only >> > > change is one line added to the commit messages to reference >> > > the commit which introduces the API: >> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/147414/focus=8004 >> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/147414/focus=8005 >> > >> > Who's tree did the API make it in through? That would likely be the best tree to >> > pull these 2 patches in from. >> > >> > Robert, Lv, Rafael? Would one of you prefer to take these 2 patches using the >> > new API? >> >> It was my tree and I can take these patches, but in that case I'd like the >> function's name to be changed as discussed elsewhere. >> >> Executive summary is that we have acpi_dev_present() and acpi_device_is_present() >> now and they serve different purposes which is kind of confusing. Moreover, >> acpi_dev_present() doesn't check if the device is actually present, so >> I would like it to be renamed to acpi_device_found() or similar. > > There are 4 users of acpi_dev_present in linux-next (3 in sound/soc/intel/, > 1 in include/linux/apple-gmux.h). I expect 1 other user to appear in i915. > > I've created a patch (based on linux-next and included below as an RFC) > to rename acpi_dev_present to acpi_dev_found in the function declaration > as well as at all call sites. I've also rebased the 2 pdx86 patches onto > this and pushed the branch to GitHub: > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/acpi_dev_found > > My plan is currently to wait until all users are merged into 4.6, > then rebase my branch onto Linus' tree and post the resulting patches. > This will be either late during the 4.6 merge window or immediately > after it has closed. You could then either pick up the patches for > 4.6 or 4.7, whichever you prefer. > > If you'd prefer a different way of moving forward or would like > something changed in the patch below, please let me know and > I will be happy to adjust accordingly. Thanks for doing this! Your plan seems workable to me, so please go ahead with it. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
