Hi Rafael, I've noticed only now that the PCI core has 2 separate functions for detecting presence of a device, pci_dev_present() which only searches the list of enumerated devices, and pci_device_is_present(), which tests actual presence by reading from the device's config space. Thus it would actually be consistent to have acpi_dev_present() (only searches namespace) and acpi_device_is_present() (calls _STA). But I assume you still want it renamed, right? Just to clarify. Thanks, Lukas On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:21:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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
