From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F360F5FDD9 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707927411; cv=none; b=fSqx3WtnZNqBf0QH1KvKHBx0yBG/EZvEn+y2+8Ml9Ps4S5CTDB22Ap5wz4KRYOgIubyUS5zYEbrh1QPqw+1eiwvsW5/nIO/7IzsnkZ8aDiZcfAM08YHcpQp5PZ3f3jgS+YqFVc4MW+MEcBI72fiWD+UJSLsYyFaIWp+M77RftYM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707927411; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L+oIgzjrFnzauVVHbAUt4EyphHgUD2w4Ot8KTaamqpE=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NglOGvU+DgcadlNHlTPoR+/MB6xeHDDZ5Ykx9tHaXtPY6NB8TkE1oVAIkKyhH7hu3l12EUH30Hv8c2BUKBijWi/ty46+7ouNB8838yneXx9ANoJssfs5vaxrw/7opuSDQ4x19msAmamDlLL7Xbmv6uh5O9CtVpew16KWYkIpluY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TZjsR4YV9z67ZyK; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:12:59 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E643140DEA; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:16:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:16:40 +0000 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:16:39 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Andy Shevchenko CC: Jonathan LoBue , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: accel: bmc150: Duplicate ACPI entries Message-ID: <20240214161639.0000436e@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240213223806.27056-1-jlobue10@gmail.com> <5773370.DvuYhMxLoT@nobara-ally-pc> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.241) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:39:53 +0200 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:07=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan LoBue wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:35:56 AM PST Andy Shevchenko wrote: = =20 > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:38=E2=80=AFAM Jonathan LoBue wrote: =20 >=20 > ... >=20 > > > > Comment describing the duplicate ACPI identifier issue has been add= ed > > > > before the "BOSC0200" entry here. =20 > > > > > > Hmm... =20 > > > > You asked for a changelog after the cutter, although it really seems > > unnecessary to me here as it's repetitive in nature with comment above.= =20 >=20 > This is fine and needed. My comment was about the actual placement of > the comment (should be immediately before the ID entry and not > detached from it. >=20 > ... >=20 > > > > + * The "BOSC0200" ACPI identifier used here in the bmc150 driver i= s not =20 > > > > > > s/ACPI// > > > s/in the bmc150 driver// > > > =20 > > > > So update the first sentence in the comment to be: > > > > The "BOSC0200" identifier used here is not... > > ? =20 >=20 > Yes. >=20 > > > > + * unique to devices using bmc150. The same "BOSC0200" identifier = is found > > > > + * in the ACPI tables of the ASUS ROG ALLY and Ayaneo AIR Plus whi= ch both > > > > + * use a Bosch BMI323 chip. This creates a conflict with duplicate= ACPI > > > > + * identifiers which multiple drivers want to use. Fortunately, wh= en the > > > > + * bmc150 driver starts to load on the ASUS ROG ALLY, the chip id = check > > > > + * portion fails (correctly) and a dmesg output similar to this: > > > > + * "bmc150_accel_i2c i2c-BOSC0200:00: Invalid chip 0" can be seen. > > > > + * This allows the bmi323 driver to take over for ASUS ROG ALLY. = =20 >=20 > ... >=20 > > > > static const struct acpi_device_id bmc150_acpi_dual_accel_ids[] = =3D { =20 > > > > > > ...it should be here. But don't resend, let's Jonathan to decide in > > > case he won't amend this when applying. > > > =20 > > > > {"BOSC0200"}, =20 > > > > This seems to be a stylistic preference on whether or not to include th= is > > long comment inside of the ACPI match table or not. Stylistically, my > > preference would be to include it directly above the match table and not > > inside of it. I will wait for Jonathan Cameron's comments about what to= do > > here. =20 >=20 > In my p.o.v. it's not stylic as we refer to the exact ID and having > comment detached is, besides being unusual, may go outdated too > quickly as code is being grown and developed. So, I really want it to > be closer to the ID entry. Yes, please send a v3 with it next to the relevant ID. Also dont send new versions in reply to old ones. For IIO patches at least, a new thread every time please. >=20