On 20/04/2018 14:52, Mika Westerberg wrote:
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.
Hi Mika,
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.
I did consider this initially and it seems quite straightforward.
However I think the problem is that we would need to modify the
acpi_device child resources from FW with kernel-specific resources,
which does not seem right (I think that is what you meant). As I see,
this is one reason that we went in the direction of modelling the host
as an MFD, as we could set the resources of the mfd_cells.
So adding a variant of pnpacpi_add_device() could work, or modifying
pnpacpi_add_device() to accept a callback to translate the resources.
But this feature is specific to our very special requirement...
Thanks,
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
