* [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" @ 2017-03-21 18:37 ` Andy Shevchenko 2017-03-22 1:14 ` Chanwoo Choi 2017-03-27 4:18 ` Chanwoo Choi 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-21 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chanwoo Choi, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Lu Baolu The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It seems a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI-enabled platforms. Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c index d47573a31e17..9c925b05b7aa 100644 --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ #include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/workqueue.h> -#include <linux/acpi.h> #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> #define USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS 20 /* ms */ @@ -111,7 +110,7 @@ static int usb_extcon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct usb_extcon_info *info; int ret; - if (!np && !ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) + if (!np) return -EINVAL; info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); -- 2.11.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-21 18:37 ` [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-22 1:14 ` Chanwoo Choi 2017-03-22 13:09 ` Andy Shevchenko 2017-03-27 4:18 ` Chanwoo Choi 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-22 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu Hi, On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It seems > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI-enabled > platforms. Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496. Should we revert it? I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb-gpio.c is more common device driver. Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi side? > > Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > index d47573a31e17..9c925b05b7aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/workqueue.h> > -#include <linux/acpi.h> > #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> > > #define USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS 20 /* ms */ > @@ -111,7 +110,7 @@ static int usb_extcon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct usb_extcon_info *info; > int ret; > > - if (!np && !ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) > + if (!np) > return -EINVAL; > > info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); > -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-22 1:14 ` Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-22 13:09 ` Andy Shevchenko 2017-03-24 11:03 ` Chanwoo Choi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-22 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chanwoo Choi, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the > > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It > > seems > > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- > > enabled > > platforms. > > Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, > and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- > int3496. > Should we revert it? > > I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 > driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename > of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb-gpio.c > is more common device driver. > > Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi side? For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in the kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least GPIO ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there is any in this particular case). So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). > > > > > Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. > > > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > index d47573a31e17..9c925b05b7aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c > > @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/workqueue.h> > > -#include <linux/acpi.h> > > #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> > > > > #define USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS 20 /* ms */ > > @@ -111,7 +110,7 @@ static int usb_extcon_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > struct usb_extcon_info *info; > > int ret; > > > > - if (!np && !ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) > > + if (!np) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-22 13:09 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-24 11:03 ` Chanwoo Choi 2017-03-24 11:24 ` Andy Shevchenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-24 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu Hi, On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the >>> device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It >>> seems >>> a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- >>> enabled >>> platforms. >> >> Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, >> and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- >> int3496. >> Should we revert it? > > >> >> I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 >> driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename >> of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb-gpio.c >> is more common device driver. >> >> Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi side? > > For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in the > kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. > > Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least GPIO > ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While > confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the > functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there is > any in this particular case). > > So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a > confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with > ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason. Because I already mentioned, 1. "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion. But, in this case, they are different between two drivers. 2. Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'. I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi side. I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side. > >> >>> >>> Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. >>> >>> Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>> b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>> index d47573a31e17..9c925b05b7aa 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c >>> @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ >>> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >>> #include <linux/slab.h> >>> #include <linux/workqueue.h> >>> -#include <linux/acpi.h> >>> #include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> >>> >>> #define USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS 20 /* ms */ >>> @@ -111,7 +110,7 @@ static int usb_extcon_probe(struct >>> platform_device *pdev) >>> struct usb_extcon_info *info; >>> int ret; >>> >>> - if (!np && !ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) >>> + if (!np) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL); >>> >> >> > -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-24 11:03 ` Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-24 11:24 ` Andy Shevchenko 2017-03-24 11:47 ` Chanwoo Choi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-24 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chanwoo Choi, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:03 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > > On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for > > > > the > > > > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. > > > > It > > > > seems > > > > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- > > > > enabled > > > > platforms. > > > > > > Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, > > > and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- > > > int3496. > > > Should we revert it? > > > > > > > > > > I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 > > > driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename > > > of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb- > > > gpio.c > > > is more common device driver. > > > > > > Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi > > > side? > > > > For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in > > the > > kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. > > > > Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least > > GPIO > > ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While > > confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the > > functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there > > is > > any in this particular case). > > > > So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a > > confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with > > ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). > > Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c > on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason. > > Because I already mentioned, > 1. > "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver > are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation > and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion. > But, in this case, they are different between two drivers. > > 2. > Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'. > I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi > side. > I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side. Just one question: is there *real* existing device where ACPI table contains something related to extcon-usb-gpio? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Moreover, Lu pointed me out to the series which tried to update the driver in question to support int3496. Though it comes as a separate driver, thus that series was abandoned IIUC. I really don't care if some dead confusing code will be left in some poor driver, at the end it's not my call. P.S. We already spent enough time making a mountain out of a molehill. I rest my case. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-24 11:24 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-24 11:47 ` Chanwoo Choi 2017-03-27 0:51 ` Lu Baolu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-24 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham, Lu Baolu Hi Lu Baolu, On 2017년 03월 24일 20:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:03 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>> On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>>> The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for >>>>> the >>>>> device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. >>>>> It >>>>> seems >>>>> a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- >>>>> enabled >>>>> platforms. >>>> >>>> Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, >>>> and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- >>>> int3496. >>>> Should we revert it? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 >>>> driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename >>>> of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb- >>>> gpio.c >>>> is more common device driver. >>>> >>>> Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi >>>> side? >>> >>> For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in >>> the >>> kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. >>> >>> Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least >>> GPIO >>> ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While >>> confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the >>> functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there >>> is >>> any in this particular case). >>> >>> So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a >>> confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with >>> ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). >> >> Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c >> on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason. >> >> Because I already mentioned, >> 1. >> "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver >> are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation >> and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion. >> But, in this case, they are different between two drivers. >> >> 2. >> Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'. >> I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi >> side. >> I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side. > > Just one question: is there *real* existing device where ACPI table > contains something related to extcon-usb-gpio? > > I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Moreover, Lu pointed me out to the > series which tried to update the driver in question to support int3496. > Though it comes as a separate driver, thus that series was abandoned > IIUC. > > I really don't care if some dead confusing code will be left in some > poor driver, at the end it's not my call. > > P.S. We already spent enough time making a mountain out of a molehill. I > rest my case. > OK. Just I want to receive the reply from Lu Baolu. In the "extcon-usb-gpio ACPI support" mail thread, I understood that Lu Baolu said that the related patches were abandoned. To Lu Baolu, Don't you ever use the extcon-usb-gpio.c in the future on acpi side? If you agree it, I'll revert it. -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-24 11:47 ` Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-27 0:51 ` Lu Baolu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Lu Baolu @ 2017-03-27 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chanwoo Choi, Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham Hi, On 03/24/2017 07:47 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi Lu Baolu, > > On 2017년 03월 24일 20:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 20:03 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>> On 2017년 03월 22일 22:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 10:14 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>>> On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>>> The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for >>>>>> the >>>>>> device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. >>>>>> It >>>>>> seems >>>>>> a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- >>>>>> enabled >>>>>> platforms. >>>>> Only for the reason that there is no any usecase until now, >>>>> and remove the confusion between extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel- >>>>> int3496. >>>>> Should we revert it? >>>> >>>>> I think that both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 >>>>> driver are not same operation perfectly. Also, the filename >>>>> of extcon-intel-int3496 has specific name. Instead, extcon-usb- >>>>> gpio.c >>>>> is more common device driver. >>>>> >>>>> Can the extcon-intel-int3496.c support the everything on acpi >>>>> side? >>>> For my understanding we have the only driver for now for USB mux in >>>> the >>>> kernel for ACPI-enabled platforms. >>>> >>>> Besides confusion, it makes harder to fix a real bugs in at least >>>> GPIO >>>> ACPI library since we need to amend any user of it first. While >>>> confusion is here, I can't do anything to not possible break the >>>> functionality of the driver in a real use case if any (I doubt there >>>> is >>>> any in this particular case). >>>> >>>> So, my opinion here is "yes, we should revert it until we have a >>>> confirmation that there is a product which is using this among with >>>> ACPI" (which I doubt ever exists). >>> Because you told me there was not any use case of extcon-usb-gpioc.c >>> on acpi side. But, I think that it is not enough as the reason. >>> >>> Because I already mentioned, >>> 1. >>> "The both extcon-usb-gpio and extcon-intel-int3496 driver >>> are not same operation perfectly." It two driver are same operation >>> and there is no use case on acpi side, I may agree your suggestion. >>> But, in this case, they are different between two drivers. >>> >>> 2. >>> Also, extcon-intel-int3496 has the specific name 'int3496'. >>> I think that it only depends on the specific device driver on acpi >>> side. >>> I don't think it cover all of use case on acpi side. >> Just one question: is there *real* existing device where ACPI table >> contains something related to extcon-usb-gpio? >> >> I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Moreover, Lu pointed me out to the >> series which tried to update the driver in question to support int3496. >> Though it comes as a separate driver, thus that series was abandoned >> IIUC. >> >> I really don't care if some dead confusing code will be left in some >> poor driver, at the end it's not my call. >> >> P.S. We already spent enough time making a mountain out of a molehill. I >> rest my case. >> > OK. Just I want to receive the reply from Lu Baolu. > > In the "extcon-usb-gpio ACPI support" mail thread, > I understood that Lu Baolu said that the related patches were abandoned. > > To Lu Baolu, > Don't you ever use the extcon-usb-gpio.c in the future on acpi side? > If you agree it, I'll revert it. > I will not use extcon-usb-gpio.c in the future on acpi side AFAICS. Best regards, Lu Baolu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-21 18:37 ` [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" Andy Shevchenko 2017-03-22 1:14 ` Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-27 4:18 ` Chanwoo Choi 2017-03-27 7:07 ` Andy Shevchenko 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-27 4:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu Hi Andy, On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It seems > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI-enabled > platforms. > > Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > Applied it on extcon-fixes branch. -- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" 2017-03-27 4:18 ` Chanwoo Choi @ 2017-03-27 7:07 ` Andy Shevchenko 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-27 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chanwoo Choi, linux-kernel, MyungJoo Ham; +Cc: Lu Baolu On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 13:18 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 2017년 03월 22일 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The commit 942c7924a51e introduced a check for ACPI handle for the > > device that never appears on any ACPI-enabled platform so far. It > > seems > > a confusion with extcon-intel-int3496 which does support ACPI- > > enabled > > platforms. > > > > Revert commit 942c7924a51e to avoid any confusion in the future. > > > > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/extcon/extcon-usb-gpio.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Applied it on extcon-fixes branch. Thanks! -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-27 7:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CGME20170321183839epcas2p1de828034e7360ea8ea365861b9335626@epcas2p1.samsung.com>
2017-03-21 18:37 ` [PATCH v1] Revert "extcon: usb-gpio: add support for ACPI gpio interface" Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-22 1:14 ` Chanwoo Choi
2017-03-22 13:09 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-24 11:03 ` Chanwoo Choi
2017-03-24 11:24 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-24 11:47 ` Chanwoo Choi
2017-03-27 0:51 ` Lu Baolu
2017-03-27 4:18 ` Chanwoo Choi
2017-03-27 7:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).