From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753260Ab0BQOgb (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:36:31 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([143.182.124.36]:62586 "EHLO azsmga102.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756917Ab0BQOg2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:36:28 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,491,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="245004303" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:37:44 +0100 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Jean Delvare , Denis Turischev , David Brownell , LKML , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MFD: introduce lpc_sch for Intel SCH LPC bridge Message-ID: <20100217143743.GB3011@sortiz.org> References: <4B73DAEE.5080400@compulab.co.il> <4B73DB4B.40501@compulab.co.il> <201002161157.47196.david-b@pacbell.net> <20100216224947.5c46ff86@hyperion.delvare> <4B7BBEE5.3040104@compulab.co.il> <20100217114433.6a405bd3@hyperion.delvare> <4B7BE292.5080700@compulab.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7BE292.5080700@compulab.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mike, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:35:30PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Samuel, > > Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:03:17 +0200, Denis Turischev wrote: > >> Jean Delvare wrote: > >>> Might be a good idea to use acpi_check_resource_conflict() or similar > >>> before instantiating the platform devices. > >> May be it worth to add such resource check directly to mfd_add_device function? > > > > I'm not sure. I suspect that many MFD devices are never used on > > ACPI-aware systems, so it might be considered overkill. OTOH the calls > > resolve to empty stubs when ACPI is disabled so... I have no objection, > > but I'll leave the decision to somebody else ;) > > > > What do you think? Shall we add something like mfd_verify_resources that will call > acpi_check_region or something similar? Yes, that sounds like a reasonable idea. We should probably call acpi_check_resource_conflict() straight from mfd_add_device(). I'll do that, no need for Denis to add that patch for its code to be merged. Cheers, Samuel. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MFD: introduce lpc_sch for Intel SCH LPC bridge Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:37:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20100217143743.GB3011@sortiz.org> References: <4B73DAEE.5080400@compulab.co.il> <4B73DB4B.40501@compulab.co.il> <201002161157.47196.david-b@pacbell.net> <20100216224947.5c46ff86@hyperion.delvare> <4B7BBEE5.3040104@compulab.co.il> <20100217114433.6a405bd3@hyperion.delvare> <4B7BE292.5080700@compulab.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7BE292.5080700-UTxiZqZC01RS1MOuV/RT9w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Jean Delvare , Denis Turischev , David Brownell , LKML , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Mike, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:35:30PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Samuel, > > Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:03:17 +0200, Denis Turischev wrote: > >> Jean Delvare wrote: > >>> Might be a good idea to use acpi_check_resource_conflict() or similar > >>> before instantiating the platform devices. > >> May be it worth to add such resource check directly to mfd_add_device function? > > > > I'm not sure. I suspect that many MFD devices are never used on > > ACPI-aware systems, so it might be considered overkill. OTOH the calls > > resolve to empty stubs when ACPI is disabled so... I have no objection, > > but I'll leave the decision to somebody else ;) > > > > What do you think? Shall we add something like mfd_verify_resources that will call > acpi_check_region or something similar? Yes, that sounds like a reasonable idea. We should probably call acpi_check_resource_conflict() straight from mfd_add_device(). I'll do that, no need for Denis to add that patch for its code to be merged. Cheers, Samuel. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/