On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 07:57:02PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Currently for ACPI-based FW we fail the probe for an unrecognised child
> HID.
>
> However, there is FW in the field with LPC child devices having fake HIDs,
> namely "IPI0002", which was an IPMI device invented to support the
> initial out-of-tree LPC host driver, different from the final mainline
> version.
>
> To provide compatibility support for these dodgy FWs, just discard the
> unrecognised HIDs instead of failing the probe altogether.
>
> Tested-by: Zengruan Ye <yezengr...@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.ga...@huawei.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
> index d5f8545..19d7b6f 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
> @@ -522,10 +522,9 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_probe(struct device *hostdev)
>
> if (!found) {
> dev_warn(hostdev,
> - "could not find cell for child device (%s)\n",
> + "could not find cell for child device (%s),
> discarding\n",
> hid);
> - ret = -ENODEV;
> - goto fail;
> + continue;
> }
This driver is the equivalent of a board file. Wasn't ACPI supposed to
spare us from these platform device tables? It even has hardcoded clock
information in it. :(
Also, we were told that there'll be expectations for users to update
their ACPI tables if they're incompatible our out of date. Can that be done
here as well?
-Olof
