On 13/03/2018 10:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Based on this patch-set, all the I/O accesses to Hip06/Hip07 LPC
peripherals can
be supported without any changes on the existing ipmi-si driver.
The whole patchset has been tested on Hip07 D05 board both using DTB
and ACPI.
V15 thread here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/26/584
Thanks for an update.
Though I answered to previous thread.
Summary: I'm fine with the series as long as maintainers are fine
(Rafael et al.). On personal side I think that the handler approach is
better. Details are in v15 thread.
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your input and continued support. As I mentioned in reply in
v15,
the handler support would (or has) faced issues. And Rafael seems fine
with
deferring the probe to the LLDD in Patch #7/9
Hi Rafael,
Well, the only sort-of concern is that these devices may not be
"serial bus slaves" in general, so the naming is slightly confusing.
Right, the name.
The key point is that we model the bus the same as other serial buses like
I2C or SPI, so require the same treatment from the ACPI scan.
Would you prefer acpi_is_serial_bus_slave() and
acpi_device_flags.serial_bus_slave symbols be modified also?
Yeah, preferably.
You can rename them to acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() and
acpi_device_flags.enumeration_by_parent, respectively, as far as I'm
concerned.
At least the names would match the purpose then. :-)
And please update the comment in acpi_default_enumeration() while at it.
Hi Rafael,
That should be ok. I can just add this mentioned modification to my
series and send for review.
All the best,
John
.
--
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
