Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Add a scan handler for PRP0001

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>]

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 <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 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 <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Still looks fine to me,

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>