On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:45:02AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:48:35AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:59:25PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > When enumerating I2C devices connected to an I2C adapter we scan the > > > > whole > > > > namespace (as it is possible to have devices anywhere in that namespace, > > > > not just below the I2C adapter device) and add each found device to the > > > > I2C > > > > bus in question. > > > > > > > > Now after commit 525e6fabeae2 ("i2c / ACPI: add support for ACPI > > > > reconfigure notifications") checking of the adapter handle to the one > > > > found > > > > in the I2cSerialBus() resource was moved to happen after resources of > > > > the > > > > I2C device has been parsed. This means that if the I2cSerialBus() > > > > resource > > > > points to an adapter that does not exists in the system we still parse > > > > those resources. This is problematic in particular because > > > > acpi_dev_resource_interrupt() tries to configure GSI if the device also > > > > has > > > > an Interrupt() resource. Failing to do that results errrors like this > > > > to be > > > > printed on the console: > > > > > > > > [ 10.409490] ERROR: Unable to locate IOAPIC for GSI 37 > > > > > > > > To fix this we pass the I2C adapter to i2c_acpi_get_info() and make sure > > > > the handle matches the one in the I2cSerialBus() resource before doing > > > > anything else to the device. > > > > > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Nicolai Stange <nicsta...@gmail.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Considering this for for-current. So shall we add: > > > > > > Fixes: 525e6fabeae2 ("i2c / ACPI: add support for ACPI reconfigure > > > notifications") > > > > > > ? > > > > Yes please :) > > Huh? It doesn't apply on top of rc7 here? What did you base it on?
It is based on linux-next as it is on top of Jarkko's I2C ACPI namespace cleanup patches. I'm wondering if I make an updated patch on top of v4.8-rc7 does it conflict with the I2C stuff in linux-next? What's your preference?