On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Frédéric Danis wrote:
> Le 07/09/2017 à 19:25, Marcel Holtmann a écrit :
> > >--- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > >+++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > >@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ struct acpi_device_flags {
> > > u32 of_compatible_ok:1;
> > > u32 coherent_dma:1;
> > > u32 cca_seen:1;
> > >- u32 spi_i2c_slave:1;
> > >+ u32 serial_slave:1;
> > > u32 reserved:19;
> > >};
> > I am not an ACPI expert, but wouldn't we better have a serial_bus_slave
> > here. And the serial_bus_slave can be either UART or I2C? Or have a
> > pretty good commit message explaining why this is serial_slave only.
>
> I will rename it.
> serial_bus_slave can be either SPI, I2C or UART
> (cf. http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/include/acpi/acrestyp.h#L446).
Another idea would be to describe the *effect*, rather than the devices
affected, i.e. something like:
- u32 spi_i2c_slave:1;
+ u32 parent_enumerated:1;
such that it could be extended to slaves on a non-serial bus in the
future.
Thanks,
Lukas
--
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
