On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 08:20:14AM +0000, Dan Scally wrote: > On 24/10/2020 23:36, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 11:28:06PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > >> On 24/10/2020 10:37, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>>> I wonder if we could avoid depending on the I2C device being created by > >>>>> getting the fwnode from adev, and setting ->secondary manually. adev > >>>>> would need to be passed to get_acpi_ssdb_sensor_data() instead of dev. > >>>> Let me try that; I initially wanted to do > >>>> set_secondary_fwnode(&adev->dev, fwnode) to avoid depending on the I2C > >>>> dev being created but it turns out &adev->dev isn't the same pointer. I > >>>> shall try it and see. > >> Actually, thinking on this further I think maybe we can't avoid that - > >> it's not actually in this patch series but during assigning GPIO > >> resources parsed from PMIC's ACPI node to the sensor, I'm using > >> dev_name() on the i2c dev to pass to .dev_id member of gpiod_lookup_table > > Any chance we can construct the I2C device name from the ACPI device, > > the same way that the ACPI/I2C core does ? It may be a dead end, but if > > we could avoid depending on the I2C device, I think it will make > > initialization easier. I have a feeling that will be difficult though, > > as we'll need the I2C bus number, which won't be readily available. > OK yeah; the i2c core does indeed just prefix "i2c-" onto the acpi > device name, so I will make this change too. This is part of the I²C core and if you go this way, do not home grow the functionality that doesn't belong here. Instead, export a helper function that will do it for you and for I²C core with explanation why it's needed. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
