On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:02:24PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 07-10-17 16:26, Johan Hovold wrote: > > However, there are of course a couple of caveats. Once Frederic's ACPI > > patches land, there will be no more platform child devices. Unless > > serdev support is then compiled in, this means that PM will break > > (silently). And if serdev is enabled, of course the tty class device is > > gone and hciattach (btattach) will fail, but I guess everyone is aware > > of that issue by now. > > > > Should BT_HCIUART_BCM start depending on SERIAL_DEV_CTRL_TTYPORT (when > > ACPI is enabled) to avoid such silent breakage once ACPI-support is > > merged? > > It seems that this was answered already in further discussions and > your recent patch to add a default y to SERIAL_DEV_CTRL_TTYPORT fixes > this, right ? Only partially, as the serdev bus code could still be built as a module, which would prevent SERIAL_DEV_CTRL_TTYPORT from being selected. We could consider having BT_HCIUART_BCM depend on SERIAL_DEV_CTRL_TTYPORT (or !ACPI || SERIAL_DEV_CTRL_TTYPORT) just to avoid any hard-to-detect regressions. Johan -- 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
