From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] i2c: qup: add ACPI support Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:07:22 +0300 Message-ID: <20160620150722.GP1739@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1465409985-17113-1-git-send-email-austinwc@codeaurora.org> <20160618141034.GB1430@tetsubishi> <20160620082420.GX1739@lahna.fi.intel.com> <5768051E.3020008@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5768051E.3020008@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: Austin Christ , Wolfram Sang , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rruigrok@codeaurora.org, nkaje@codeaurora.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, cov@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:00:46AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Use has_acpi_companion() if you need to. > > Is has_acpi_companion() the preferred alternative to ACPI_HANDLE()? We > frequently need to write code that does something different on ACPI vs DT, > and there doesn't appear to be much consistency on how that's handled. Yes, that's the preferred one.