On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
I don't know, because I don't have that device at all. Alex?
--Andy
--
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
