From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Device bindings documentation updated ACPI-enabled platforms not currently supported Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:30:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20161014173014.GA26269@leverpostej> References: <36f4b1736e36b039af15b13645df0de492f1b6e1.1476462204.git.lolivei@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <36f4b1736e36b039af15b13645df0de492f1b6e1.1476462204.git.lolivei@synopsys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Luis.Oliveira@synopsys.com Cc: jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, wsa@the-dreams.de, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, CARLOS.PALMINHA@synopsys.com, Ramiro.Oliveira@synopsys.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:52:50PM +0100, Luis.Oliveira@synopsys.com wrote: > - is_slave = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "isslave"); Which tree is this based on? I cant see the existing isslave property in mainline HEAD (commit 29fbff8698fc0ac1). > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI > + is_slave = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "is-slave"); > +#endif This ifdef is broken. At least for arm64, a single kernel image can be booted with either ACPI or DT. We need separate accessors for DT and ACPI to handle these differently, or you need to explicitly check whether or not you have ACPI or DT at runtime. Thanks, Mark.