On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:29:49AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Quite a bit late, but still:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +
> >> +static int __init intel_hid_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
> >> + ACPI_UINT32_MAX, check_acpi_dev, NULL,
> >> + (void *)intel_hid_ids, NULL);
> >> +
> >> + return platform_driver_register(&intel_hid_pl_driver);
> >> +}
> >
> > Why do we need to walk instantiate the device ourselves instead of
> > having ACPI core do it for us? I also see this pattern in intel-vbtn.c
> > now.
>
> See the comment above check_acpi_dev():
>
> /*
> * Unfortunately, some laptops provide a _HID="INT33D5" device with
> * _CID="PNP0C02". This causes the pnpacpi scan driver to claim the
> * ACPI node, so no platform device will be created. The pnpacpi
> * driver rejects this device in subsequent processing, so no physical
> * node is created at all.
> *
> * As a workaround until the ACPI core figures out how to handle
> * this corner case, manually ask the ACPI platform device code to
> * claim the ACPI node.
> */
Ah, I missed that (because I originally looked at intel-vbtn). Does
INT33D6 also have the same issue?
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
