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 <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > --- > 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
