From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Work around BIOS bug on
 some devices
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:19:04 +0300
Message-ID: <20170901091904.GV2598@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <20170814201425.20991-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <CAHp75Vdityzx+fzU_q0vULGpT3ww8C0_D0fYtEW77Hyh1yTX6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <06a1d48c-9f75-4aab-107d-f71ce8ebbb26@redhat.com>
 <CAHp75Vdz3S5a=Vqf=rnMV9Dy+829MGNUWPmzp+B08NadBM0wNg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:1565 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751720AbdIAJTK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 1 Sep 2017 05:19:10 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vdz3S5a=Vqf=rnMV9Dy+829MGNUWPmzp+B08NadBM0wNg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>, Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:04:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 14-08-17 22:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> 
> >>> +int cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047(struct device *dev, void *data)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       const char *name = dev_name(dev);
> >>> +       struct i2c_client **max17047 = data;
> >>> +
> >>> +       if (name && strcmp(name, "i2c-MAX17047:00") == 0) {
> >>
> >>
> >> Can we stop using bad practice of comparing against _instance_?
> >> If device is suppose to be single in the system, wouldn't _HID be enough?
> 
> > Yes _HID would be enough, but that takes some extra code with little
> > gain IMHO, we are effectively checking the HID here as that is where
> > the device-name comes from.
> >
> > Anyways if you strongly prefer a HID check I can do a v2 doing that
> > either way let me know.
> 
> Currently we have the following modules where ACPI instance is used in:
> 
> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c
> drivers/platform/x86/silead_dmi.c
> drivers/power/supply/axp288_charger.c
> 
> and plenty under sound/soc/intel.
> 
> I do not care right now about sound/soc/intel stuff, while everywhere
> else would be better to avoid this.
> 
> Mika, Rafael, what're yours opinions regarding to use ACPI instances
> in the drivers?

Since the instance name is generated by the ACPI core and in theory
could change, I agree this is pretty fragile. Using _HID/_UID should be
the preferred way. However, it is not always possible so we end up doing
hacks like this.