Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:52:22 +0300 | From | Mika Westerberg <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ACPI / PNP: Don't add "enumeration_by_parent" devices |
| |
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:24:18PM +0100, John Garry wrote: > Hi Mika, > > On 20/04/2018 14:07, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:07:25PM +0800, John Garry wrote: > > > + } else { > > > + device->driver_data = dev; > > > > I think this deserves a comment explaining why we (ab)use driver_data > > like this. > > Sure, could add. I didn't see any other way for the acpi_device structure to > reference the derived PNP device. > > TBH, This overall approach is not good since we are creating the PNP device > in the scan, and then leaving the device in limbo, waiting for the parent to > add it, if at all. There's no rule for this. > > So I'm looking for ideas on how to improve this.
One idea is to make pnpacpi_add_device() available outside of PNP and call it directly (or some variation) in hisi_lpc.c when it walks over its children.
| |