From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755115Ab2KWKpv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:45:51 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:34678 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754742Ab2KWKpf (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:45:35 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Mika Westerberg , Chris Ball , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add SDHCI ACPI driver Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:50:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2598169.DOlpl8d5b4@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.3 (Linux/3.7.0-rc6; KDE/4.9.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <50AF4C39.4040209@intel.com> References: <1353573830-13006-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <20121123093416.GR3867@intel.com> <50AF4C39.4040209@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, November 23, 2012 12:13:13 PM Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 23/11/12 11:34, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:24:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 22, 2012 04:46:10 PM Adrian Hunter wrote: > >>> On 22/11/12 15:55, Chris Ball wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 22 2012, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >>>>> Here is SDHCI ACPI driver. It is dependent on new ACPI Platform support > >>>>> so I suggest Rafael takes the patches with Chris' Ack. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please note that I would prefer this to be queued for 3.8 > >>>> > >>>> Looks fine: > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Chris Ball > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I have some dumb questions, though -- what kind of platforms ship with > >>>> these devices? Do they ever have the controller on PCI too, and what > >>>> happens with sdhci-pci vs. sdhci-acpi in that case? > >>> > >>> Since the arrival of ACPI5, platform devices can be configured using ACPI > >>> tables. PCI can also be used, but the firmware ensures that the same > >>> device is not enumerated via both ACPI and PCI. > >>> > >>> Rafael can you take these patches? > >> > >> Well, I'd prefer pnpacpi/core.c to actually use acpi_platform_device_ids[] > >> directly in addition to excluded_id_list[], so that duplicate entries don't > >> have to be added to the both of them. > > > > How about having pnpacpi to check if the ACPI device is already bound to a > > physical device and skip the device creation? Then we don't need to expose > > the acpi_platform_device_ids[] list, and this is what the ->find_device() > > code already does so why create the device in the first place? > > Yes, I was going to suggest that too. AFAICS pnpacpi has no concept of > multiple physical nodes. Any objections? Not from me. Thanks, Rafael > > diff --git a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c > > index 5b17cc8..4dc2e64 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c > > @@ -243,6 +243,10 @@ static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct acpi_device *device) > > char *pnpid; > > struct acpi_hardware_id *id; > > > > + /* Skip devices that are already bound */ > > + if (device->physical_node_count) > > + return 0; > > + > > /* > > * If a PnPacpi device is not present , the device > > * driver should not be loaded. > > > > > > -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.