From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Add device HID for future AMD I2C controller Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:32:04 +0200 Message-ID: <56E13104.8050307@linux.intel.com> References: <1457609692-25903-1-git-send-email-Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1457609692-25903-1-git-send-email-Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Xiangliang Yu , rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, wsa@the-dreams.de Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, SPG_Linux_Kernel@amd.com List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 03/10/2016 01:34 PM, Xiangliang Yu wrote: > Add device HID AMDI0010 to match the AMD ACPI Vendor ID (AMDI) that > was registered in http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list, and the I2C > controller on future AMD paltform will use the HID instead of AMD0010. > > Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c | 1 + > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c > index d507cf6..d0aad06 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_apd_device_ids[] = { > /* Generic apd devices */ > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE > { "AMD0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) }, > + { "AMDI0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) }, > { "AMD0020", APD_ADDR(cz_uart_desc) }, > { "AMD0030", }, > #endif > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c > index 438f1b4..d656657 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c > @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = { > { "80860F41", 0 }, > { "808622C1", 0 }, > { "AMD0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK }, > + { "AMDI0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK }, > { "AMDI0510", 0 }, > { "APMC0D0F", 0 }, > { } > -- I guess these changes don't necessarily need to go together? Although I think chances to get a conflict is pretty low. For i2c-designware: Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula