From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Add a scan handler for PRP0001 Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:24:25 +0300 Message-ID: <20150505112425.GB1541@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <3444888.xxxTREorHY@vostro.rjw.lan> <1816071.3jMa2RA6JD@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150422095718.GM1677@lahna.fi.intel.com> <12683914.6j7dxAgR6V@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:29037 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933129AbbEELY3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 07:24:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12683914.6j7dxAgR6V@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Darren Hart , ACPI Devel Maling List , Zhang Rui , Linux Kernel Mailing List 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