On Monday, December 4, 2017 3:33:29 PM CET Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 04-12-17 15:30, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > On 04/12/17 15:48, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Wouldn't it be easier to use the ACPI _DEP tracking for this, e.g. > > > > It is using _DEP, see acpi_lpss_dep() > > > >> add something like this to the the probe function: > >> > >> struct acpi_device = ACPI_COMPANION(device); > >> > >> if (acpi_device->dep_unmet) > >> return -EPROBE_DEFER; > >> > >> No idea if this will work, but if it does work, using the deps described > >> in the ACPI tables seems like a better solution then hardcoding this. > > > > That would not work because there are other devices listed in the _DEP > > method so dep_unmet is always true. So we are left checking _DEP but only > > for specific device dependencies. > > Ugh, understood thank you for explaining this. Perhaps it is a good idea > to mention in the commit message why acpi_dev->dep_unmet cannot be used > here? Not just in the commit message, but I'd suggest adding a comment to that effect next to the definition of lpss_device_links[]. 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
