On 05/07/16 13:33, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 07/05/2016 02:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jacek Anaszewski
<j.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PING
On 06/29/2016 12:54 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 06/29/2016 12:07 PM, Tony wrote:
On 29/06/16 07:52, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
Hi Rafael,
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+static const struct acpi_device_id lp3952_acpi_match[] = {
+ {LP3952_ACPI_NAME, 0},
No, you can't use "PRP0001" in this list.
+ {}
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, lp3952_acpi_match);
And you don't need this for the "PRP0001" thing to work. The
core will
take care of it for you then.
+#endif
So the entire ACPI block can be dropped for now.
And the driver doesn't have to depend on CONFIG_ACPI any more,
does it?
The driver currently supports probing only with ACPI.
I have one question BTW: isn't there anything similar to the
device tree
bindings documentation required for ACPI overlays?
Pointer to the discussion which led us to this solution:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg06230.html
_DSD is working now. I managed to get "PRP0001" working as
suggested by
Rafael in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=146711623115228&w=2
with _DSD
Thanks for the link.
Rafael, "Package" entries seem to mimic Device Tree properties defined
in the common leds bindings. Would it be possible to make it even
more compatible and define every LED connected to the LED controller
in the form of a child node, similarly as in case of LED DT bindings?
See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt and other
bindings in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds.
I'm not sure what you mean.
If somebody decides to arrange the data in their ACPI tables to follow
that scheme, it will just work IMO.
Is there anything more that needs to be done in the kernel here?
In case of Device Tree based platforms it is customary to define each
LED as a child node of the LED controller node. LED names can then
be obtained from the 'label' property or DT node name.
Tony has encountered some issues [1] while trying to follow this
pattern. Tony, could you please double check that?
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-leds/msg06230.html
Sorry, I was quite for a while. I have been trying to get the driver
probed using "compatible" property, with PRP0001. But has not worked yet.
I am told by TI to use TXNW3952 as ACPI id (waiting for final
confirmation). So hopefully won't have to use PRP0001.
I have managed to read one of the led names from ACPI table using the _DSD.
Will implement the same for other leds, and send another patch soon.
--
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
