On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:37:02PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 09:50:07AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > > On 24/10/2020 02:24, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:59:03PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > >> + adev = acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(supported_devices[i], NULL, -1); > > > > > > What if there are multiple sensor of the same model ? > > > > Hmm, yeah, that would be a bit of a pickle. I guess the newer > > smartphones have multiple sensors on the back, which I presume are the > > same model. So that will probably crop up at some point. How about > > instead I use bus_for_each_dev() and in the applied function check if > > the _HID is in the supported list? > > Sounds good to me. > > > >> + if (!adev) > > >> + continue; Please, don't. If we have so weird ACPI tables it must be w/a differently. The all, even badly formed, ACPI tables I have seen so far are using _UID to distinguish instance of the device (see second parameter to the above function). If we meet the very broken table I would like rather to know about, then silently think ahead what could be best. I.o.w. don't change this until we will have a real example of the problematic firmware. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
