Re: [PATCH v16 0/9] LPC: legacy ISA I/O support

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Dann Frazier <dann.frazier@canonical.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 0/9] LPC: legacy ISA I/O support
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:22:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jTJ-LwyPUO7mbS47KyZ35pZeBfqkjxqubZjEGC=OJ82Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ef757ff-8430-017f-59d3-ff67f49f5a80@huawei.com>

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on this patch-set, all the I/O accesses to Hip06/Hip07 LPC
>>>>> peripherals can
>>>>> be supported without any changes on the existing ipmi-si driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole patchset has been tested on Hip07 D05 board both using DTB
>>>>> and ACPI.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> V15 thread here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/26/584
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for an update.
>>>> Though I answered to previous thread.
>>>>
>>>> Summary: I'm fine with the series as long as maintainers are fine
>>>> (Rafael et al.). On personal side I think that the handler approach is
>>>> better. Details are in v15 thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input and continued support. As I mentioned in reply in
>>> v15,
>>> the handler support would (or has) faced issues. And Rafael seems fine
>>> with
>>> deferring the probe to the LLDD in Patch #7/9
>>
>>
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
>> Well, the only sort-of concern is that these devices may not be
>> "serial bus slaves" in general, so the naming is slightly confusing.
>>
>
> Right, the name.
>
> The key point is that we model the bus the same as other serial buses like
> I2C or SPI, so require the same treatment from the ACPI scan.
>
> Would you prefer acpi_is_serial_bus_slave() and
> acpi_device_flags.serial_bus_slave symbols be modified also?

Yeah, preferably.

You can rename them to acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() and
acpi_device_flags.enumeration_by_parent, respectively, as far as I'm
concerned.

At least the names would match the purpose then. :-)

And please update the comment in acpi_default_enumeration() while at it.