On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote: > [snip] > > > > Rafael: I think that there are two issues with patch 1/5: > > 1. It adds a very specific boolean flag to a structure that's meant to > > be very general. As I pointed out in the i2c patch: at the very least > > this could be made into an int storing flag values, instead of a > > boolean field. But rather than that - it looks to me more like a > > device (or bus) feature than a driver feature. Is there any ACPI flag > > we could use to pass this information to the driver model without > > changing the driver structure? > > To my knowledge there isn't. The fact that I²C devices are powered on for > probe in ACPI based systems is specific to Linux kernel and not ACPI as > such. > > The reason this needs to be in a generic struct is that the device's power > state will be changed before any interaction with the driver takes place as > it's the I²C framework that powers on the device. > I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at patch 1/6 struct device already exists so why can't this information be conveyed "per device" as opposed to "per driver"? [snip] Bartosz
