lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 00/13] intel-lpss: support non-ACPI platforms
From
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 November 2015 12:22:46 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> This series includes few logical sets that bring a support of non-ACPI
>> platforms for Intel Skylake.
>>
>> First part is a refactoring of built-in device properties support:
>> - keep single value inside the structure
>> - provide helper macros to define built-in properties
>> - fall back to secondary fwnode if primary has no asked property
>>
>> Second one is modifications to MFD code and intel-lpss.c driver in particular
>> to define and pass built-in properties to the individual drivers.
>>
>> Last part is a fix for I2C bug found on Lenovo Yoga hardware and a first
>> converted user.
>>
>> Built-in device properties is an alternative to platform data. It provides a
>> unified API that drivers can use to cover all cases at once: DT, ACPI, and
>> built-in properties.
>>
>> With this series applied platform data can be considered obsolete. Moreover,
>> built-in device properties allows to adjust existing configuration, for
>> example, in cases when ACPI values are wrong on some platforms.
>>
>> The series has been tested on available hardware and doesn't break current
>> behaviour. But we ask you, Kevin, to apply the series on your side and check
>> with Lenovo hardware.
>
> I agree with Rafael, this looks really nice. I found one small thing that
> could be improved, see the comment on patch 11.
>
> Aside from that, I think we should have a nicer way to pass a property
> list through platform_device_info when calling
> platform_device_register_full(). You don't do that here because the drivers
> you change are based on MFD cells rather than direct platform devices,
> but it would fit in the series and should be easy enough to do.
>
> I don't know why Rafael didn't do that for the initial series already, maybe
> he had a good reason.

I was focusing on the generics rather than on any particular
individual bus type.

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-24 23:41    [W:0.164 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site