On Monday, December 4, 2017 3:41:45 PM CET Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 04/12/17 16:33, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 04-12-17 15:30, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >> On 04/12/17 15:48, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Wouldn't it be easier to use the ACPI _DEP tracking for this, e.g. > >> > >> It is using _DEP, see acpi_lpss_dep() > >> > >>> add something like this to the the probe function: > >>> > >>> struct acpi_device = ACPI_COMPANION(device); > >>> > >>> if (acpi_device->dep_unmet) > >>> return -EPROBE_DEFER; > >>> > >>> No idea if this will work, but if it does work, using the deps described > >>> in the ACPI tables seems like a better solution then hardcoding this. > >> > >> That would not work because there are other devices listed in the _DEP > >> method so dep_unmet is always true. So we are left checking _DEP but only > >> for specific device dependencies. > > > > Ugh, understood thank you for explaining this. Perhaps it is a good idea > > to mention in the commit message why acpi_dev->dep_unmet cannot be used > > here? > > dep_unmet predates device links, but now we have device links, they are > better anyway.
Right (they cover PM too, for example), but it would be good to note why it is necessary to hardcode the links information in the code. Thanks, Rafael
