On 17/09/2020 15:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 4:53 PM Dan Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Andy, thanks for input (as always) > You're welcome! I'm really impressed by your activity in this area. Thanks - it's pretty fun so far >>> Ah, I think you misinterpreted the meaning of above. The above is a switch how >>> camera device appears either as PCI or an ACPI. So, it effectively means you >>> should *not* have any relation for this HID until you find a platform where the >>> device is for real enumerated via ACPI. >>> >> Ah, ok. So that was never going to work. Thanks. That does raise another >> question; we have had some testers report failure, which turns out to be >> because on their platforms the definition of their cameras in ACPI is >> never translated into an i2c_client so the cio2-bridge doesn't bind. >> Those have a similar conditional in the _STA method, see CAM1 in this >> DSDT for example: >> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/linux-surface/acpidumps/master/surface_go/dsdt.dsl. >> Is there anything we can do to enable those cameras to be discovered too? > It means that this Is the rest of this comment missing? >>>>>> +#define PROPERTY_ENTRY_NULL \ >>>>>> +((const struct property_entry) { }) >>>>> Alignment. Same appears to apply to other macros (please indent). >>>> Yep >>>>>> +#define SOFTWARE_NODE_NULL \ >>>>>> +((const struct software_node) { }) >>> Why?! >>> >> It felt ugly to have the other definitions be macros and not this one, >> but I can change it. > My point is that those macros are simply redundant. The point is to > have a terminator record (all 0:s in the last entry of an array) which > is usually being achieved by allocating memory with kcalloc() which > does implicitly this for you. Ah I see. TIL - thanks, I'll make that change too.
