On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:37:02PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>
>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
>> +static int acpi_spi_table_load(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct spi_master *master = container_of(dev, struct spi_master, dev);
>> +
>> + acpi_register_spi_devices(master);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Why do we have a separate code path for this coompared to the initial
> startup? The handling appears to be identical so it seems we should
> drive this from the ACPI code so we don't have to add this to every
> single bus with ACPI bindings.
Hi Mark,
I probably don't fully understand your question, but I don't see a way
of how we can create a new SPI device from generic ACPI code. For
example, in acpi_spi_add_device() we need the spi_master node so that
we can allocate the spi device.
The handling is identical because we don't have yet have a way to
identify what where the new nodes added when a new ACPI table /
overlay has been loaded, so we have to rescan the ACPI namespace under
each controller.
--
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
