Re: [PATCH 0/2] Use acpi_dev_present()

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> thanks a lot for your patience.
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:59:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 01:12:29 PM Darren Hart wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 09:49:41PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>> > > Hi Darren,
>> > >
>> > > the acpi_dev_present() API has now landed in Linus' tree.
>> > > Thus, after Linus' tree gets merged back into yours,
>> > > it would be possible to use the API in the pdx86 drivers
>> > > as per the following patches.
>> > >
>> > > I've also pushed these to GitHub in case anyone prefers
>> > > perusing them in a browser:
>> > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/acpi_dev_present_pdx86
>> > >
>> > > This is a repost of patches submitted in November, the only
>> > > change is one line added to the commit messages to reference
>> > > the commit which introduces the API:
>> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/147414/focus=8004
>> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/147414/focus=8005
>> >
>> > Who's tree did the API make it in through? That would likely be the best tree to
>> > pull these 2 patches in from.
>> >
>> > Robert, Lv, Rafael? Would one of you prefer to take these 2 patches using the
>> > new API?
>>
>> It was my tree and I can take these patches, but in that case I'd like the
>> function's name to be changed as discussed elsewhere.
>>
>> Executive summary is that we have acpi_dev_present() and acpi_device_is_present()
>> now and they serve different purposes which is kind of confusing.  Moreover,
>> acpi_dev_present() doesn't check if the device is actually present, so
>> I would like it to be renamed to acpi_device_found() or similar.
>
> There are 4 users of acpi_dev_present in linux-next (3 in sound/soc/intel/,
> 1 in include/linux/apple-gmux.h). I expect 1 other user to appear in i915.
>
> I've created a patch (based on linux-next and included below as an RFC)
> to rename acpi_dev_present to acpi_dev_found in the function declaration
> as well as at all call sites. I've also rebased the 2 pdx86 patches onto
> this and pushed the branch to GitHub:
> https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/acpi_dev_found
>
> My plan is currently to wait until all users are merged into 4.6,
> then rebase my branch onto Linus' tree and post the resulting patches.
> This will be either late during the 4.6 merge window or immediately
> after it has closed. You could then either pick up the patches for
> 4.6 or 4.7, whichever you prefer.
>
> If you'd prefer a different way of moving forward or would like
> something changed in the patch below, please let me know and
> I will be happy to adjust accordingly.

Thanks for doing this!

Your plan seems workable to me, so please go ahead with it.

Thanks,
Rafael