On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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;
}
Thanks for reviewing and feedback, posted v2...
Niko
--
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
