On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:24:18PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> On 20/04/2018 14:07, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:07:25PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > + } else {
> > > + device->driver_data = dev;
> >
> > I think this deserves a comment explaining why we (ab)use driver_data
> > like this.
>
> Sure, could add. I didn't see any other way for the acpi_device structure to
> reference the derived PNP device.
>
> TBH, This overall approach is not good since we are creating the PNP device
> in the scan, and then leaving the device in limbo, waiting for the parent to
> add it, if at all. There's no rule for this.
>
> So I'm looking for ideas on how to improve this.
One idea is to make pnpacpi_add_device() available outside of PNP and
call it directly (or some variation) in hisi_lpc.c when it walks over
its children.
--
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
