Hi Ricardo,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> Allow module autoloading of ad5820 ACPI devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/ad5820.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ad5820.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ad5820.c
> index e461d36201a4..5d1185e7f78d 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ad5820.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ad5820.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> * General Public License for more details.
> */
>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/i2c.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> @@ -380,6 +381,15 @@ static const struct of_device_id ad5820_of_table[] = {
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ad5820_of_table);
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +static const struct acpi_device_id ad5820_acpi_ids[] = {
> + { "AD5820" },
This is not a valid ACPI _HID. Is there a need to add ACPI support for the
chip this way?
> + { }
> +};
> +
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, ad5820_acpi_ids);
> +#endif
> +
> static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(ad5820_pm, ad5820_suspend, ad5820_resume);
>
> static struct i2c_driver ad5820_i2c_driver = {
> @@ -387,6 +397,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver ad5820_i2c_driver = {
> .name = AD5820_NAME,
> .pm = &ad5820_pm,
> .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ad5820_of_table),
> + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(ad5820_acpi_ids),
> },
> .probe = ad5820_probe,
> .remove = ad5820_remove,
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx
