From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Add a scan handler for PRP0001 Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 14:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: <1654400.V6HOKtoCaE@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <3444888.xxxTREorHY@vostro.rjw.lan> <12683914.6j7dxAgR6V@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150505112425.GB1541@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150505112425.GB1541@lahna.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Darren Hart , ACPI Devel Maling List , Zhang Rui , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 02:24:25 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:49:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Thanks, I have an update, though. > > > > In a recent discussion with Darren we've come to the conlusion that > > having a parent with PRP0001 and "compatible" and a child with PRP0001 only > > (without "compatible") is useful in cases when one complex device is > > represented by a hierarchy of "device" objects (in analogy with device > > nodes in a DT that have no struct device representations). Thus it isn't > > useful to complain that "compatible" is not present in such cases. > > OK, I see. > > > Updated patch: > > > > --- > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Subject: ACPI / property: Refine consistency check for PRP0001 > > > > Refine the check for the presence of the "compatible" property > > if the PRP0001 device ID is present in the device's list of > > ACPI/PNP IDs to also print the message if _DSD is missing > > entirely or the format of it is incorrect. > > > > One special case to take into accout is that the "compatible" > > property need not be provided for devices having the PRP0001 > > device ID in their lists of ACPI/PNP IDs if they are ancestors > > of PRP0001 devices with the "compatible" property present. > > This is to cover heriarchies of device objects where the kernel > > is only supposed to use a struct device representation for the > > topmost one and the others represent, for example, functional > > blocks of a composite device. > > > > While at it, reduce the log level of the message to "info" > > and reduce the log level of the "broken _DSD" message to > > "debug" (noise reduction). > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Still looks fine to me, > > Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg Thanks!