Re: [PATCH 1/2] PNPACPI: cope with invalid device IDs

Dmitry Torokhov
2010-09-17T22:49:50Z

On Friday, September 17, 2010 03:37:31 pm Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Friday, June 04, 2010 08:24:04 pm Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > If primary ID (HID) is invalid try locating first valid ID on compatible
> > ID list before giving up.
> >
> > This helps, for example, to recognize i8042 AUX port on Sony Vaio VPCZ1
> > which uses SNYSYN0003 as HID. Without the patch users are forced to
> > boot with i8042.nopnp to make use of their touchpads.
>
> Sorry, we seem to have dropped the ball on this. Looking at it again,
>
> I have another question below:
> > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> > index f7ff628..2029cb5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> >
> > #include "../base.h"
> > #include "pnpacpi.h"
> >
> > -static int num = 0;
> > +static int num;
> >
> > /* We need only to blacklist devices that have already an acpi driver
> > that
> >
> > * can't use pnp layer. We don't need to blacklist device that are
> > directly
> >
> > @@ -157,11 +157,24 @@ struct pnp_protocol pnpacpi_protocol = {
> >
> > };
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pnpacpi_protocol);
> >
> > +static char *pnpacpi_get_id(struct acpi_device *device)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_hardware_id *id;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(id, &device->pnp.ids, list) {
> > + if (ispnpidacpi(id->id))
> > + return id->id;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> >
> > static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct acpi_device *device)
> > {
> >
> > acpi_handle temp = NULL;
> > acpi_status status;
> > struct pnp_dev *dev;
> >
> > + char *pnpid;
> >
> > struct acpi_hardware_id *id;
> >
> > /*
> >
> > @@ -169,11 +182,17 @@ static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct
> > acpi_device *device)
> >
> > * driver should not be loaded.
> > */
> >
> > status = acpi_get_handle(device->handle, "_CRS", &temp);
> >
> > - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !ispnpidacpi(acpi_device_hid(device)) ||
> > - is_exclusive_device(device) || (!device->status.present))
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + pnpid = pnpacpi_get_id(device);
> > + if (!pnpid)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (!is_exclusive_device(device) || !device->status.present)
> >
> > return 0;
>
> Doesn't this change the sense of the is_exclusive_device() test?

Yes, it does, "!" shoudl be dropped.

OTOH maybe we should keep the "primary" ID as is (so SYNSYN0003 would
still be _the_ id) but only refuse device if none of it's IDs (neither
_HID nor _CID) satisfy ispnpidacpi() requirements.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry