On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:53:53PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > + else if (!probe_ibm_smbus_device(device))
> > + acpi_add_id(device, ACPI_SMBUS_IBM_HID);
>
> I am not responsible for the ACPI code, but... wouldn't it make sense
> to rename probe_ibm_smbus_device() to acpi_ibm_smbus_match() and have
> it follow the same convention as acpi_dock_match() and
> acpi_bay_match()? To make the code more consistent.
Sure.
> > + {ACPI_SMBUS_IBM_HID, (kernel_ulong_t)&ibm_smbus_methods},
>
> As both patches depend on each other and one is useless without the
> other, you might as well sequence them the other way around, so that
> you touch this line only once.
Will do.
> Other that these details, I like the patch. If this helps with ACPI
> resource conflicts, even better :)
It should. :) I'll reroll the patch set shortly.
--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
