On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Nikolaus Voss
<nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the patch, now I completely got it and agree on approach.
Few comments below.
> When using ACPI with ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID/ PRP0001 HID and referring to
> of_device_id table "compatible" strings in DSD, a pointer to the
_DSD
> corresponding DT table entry should be returned instead of a null
> pointer. An acpi_device_id match still takes precedence.
> const void *acpi_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev)
> {
> - const struct acpi_device_id *match;
> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id = NULL;
> + const struct of_device_id *of_id = NULL;
> + const struct device_driver *drv = dev->driver;
>
> - match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> - if (!match)
> + __acpi_match_device(acpi_companion_match(dev), drv->acpi_match_table,
> + drv->of_match_table, &acpi_id, &of_id);
Perhaps,
bool match;
match = __acpi_match_device(..);
if (!match)
return NULL;
...
> + if (acpi_id)
> + return (const void*)acpi_id->driver_data;
> + else if (of_id)
> + return (const void*)of_id->data;
Actually (dbesides redundant 'else') there is no difference in which
order you test these.
Thus, perhaps
if (of_id)
return ...of_id...;
return ...acpi_id...;
> - return (const void *)match->driver_data;
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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
