On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 19:28:06 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 7:20 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Unfortuanately a non standards compliant ACPI ID is known to be
>
> Unfortunately
One day I'll actually remember to spell check my patch descriptions.
Sorry!
>
> > in the wild on some AAEON boards.
> >
> > Partly revert the removal of these IDs so that ADC081C will again
> > work + add a comment to that affect for future reference.
>
> affect?! Okay, you are native speaker.
Doesn't make me competent at writing my native language :)
>
> ...
>
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>
> > + if (ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev)) {
> > + const struct acpi_device_id *ad_id;
> > +
> > + ad_id = acpi_match_device(client->dev.driver->acpi_match_table,
> > + &client->dev);
> > + if (!ad_id)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + model = &adcxx1c_models[ad_id->driver_data];
> > + } else {
> > + model = &adcxx1c_models[id->driver_data];
> > + }
>
> Can we please use device_get_match_data() instead (with corresponding
> property.h inclusion instead of acpi.h)?
> This may require adding driver_data to OF IDs.
>
Sure. I was going for minimal change + most revert like, but fair enough
we'll clean that up whilst here.
Jonathan
