Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] acpi/x86: s2idle: If a new AMD _HID is missing assume Rembrandt

[Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@gmail.com>]

Am Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:23:56PM -0500 schrieb Mario Limonciello:
> A mistake was made that only AMDI0007 was set to rev of "2", but
> it should have been also set for AMDI008. If an ID is missing from
> the _HID table, then assume it matches Rembrandt behavior.
> 
> This implicitly means that if any other behavior changes happen
> in the future missing IDs must be added to that table.
> 
> Tested-by: catalin@antebit.com
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
> index a7757551f750..a8256e5a0e8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c
> @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static int lps0_device_attach(struct acpi_device *adev,
>  		if (dev_id != NULL)
>  			data = (const struct amd_lps0_hid_device_data *) dev_id->driver_data;
>  		else
> -			return 0;
> +			data = &amd_rembrandt;

Ah, please disregard my suggestion in the previous patch. I'd still use:

		if (dev_id)

Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@gmail.com> # GA402RJ

regards
Philipp