Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Work around BIOS bug on some devices | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Fri, 1 Sep 2017 23:58:55 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 09/01/2017 11:19 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:04:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 14-08-17 22:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> +int cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047(struct device *dev, void *data) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + const char *name = dev_name(dev); >>>>> + struct i2c_client **max17047 = data; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (name && strcmp(name, "i2c-MAX17047:00") == 0) { >>>> >>>> >>>> Can we stop using bad practice of comparing against _instance_? >>>> If device is suppose to be single in the system, wouldn't _HID be enough? >> >>> Yes _HID would be enough, but that takes some extra code with little >>> gain IMHO, we are effectively checking the HID here as that is where >>> the device-name comes from. >>> >>> Anyways if you strongly prefer a HID check I can do a v2 doing that >>> either way let me know. >> >> Currently we have the following modules where ACPI instance is used in: >> >> drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c >> drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c >> drivers/platform/x86/silead_dmi.c >> drivers/power/supply/axp288_charger.c >> >> and plenty under sound/soc/intel. >> >> I do not care right now about sound/soc/intel stuff, while everywhere >> else would be better to avoid this. >> >> Mika, Rafael, what're yours opinions regarding to use ACPI instances >> in the drivers? > > Since the instance name is generated by the ACPI core and in theory > could change, I agree this is pretty fragile. Using _HID/_UID should be > the preferred way. However, it is not always possible so we end up doing > hacks like this.
Given that on the device in question where we need this workaround there is only ever 1 max17047, including the instance number in the check really is a non-problem, but if there is a strong preference for me to change the check over to a _HID check then I can do a v2 doing so.
Regards,
Hans
| |