Hi Simon, -----"Simon Glass" <s...@chromium.org> schrieb: ----- > Betreff: Re: [PATCH] acpi: device: Fix check for sequence number > > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 06:47, Wolfgang Wallner > <wolfgang.wall...@br-automation.com> wrote: > > > > Currently the function acpi_check_seq() checks whether dev->req_seq is > > unequal to "-1", but it should actually check dev->seq. Change it to > > check dev->seq. > > > > For req_seq the value "-1" would be a valid (meaning 'any'), while for > > seq the value "-1" means 'none' and is not valid. > > > > Quoting the description of udevice in device.h: > > * @req_seq: Requested sequence number for this device (-1 = any) > > * @seq: Allocated sequence number for this device (-1 = none). > > * This is set up when the device is probed and will be unique > > * within the device's uclass. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Wallner <wolfgang.wall...@br-automation.com> > > > > Fixes: commit fefac0b0643b ("dm: acpi: Enhance acpi_get_name()") > > > > --- > > > > lib/acpi/acpi_device.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > What problem are you seeing without this patch?
I see the following warning: "Device 'serial@18,2' has no seq". In my case req_seq for the UART is -1 ("any"), while seq is 0. Why would we check for req_seq and not for seq in this function? > At present the ACPI device may not always be probed, and probing is > when the sequence number is currently set up. In my case the UART is already probed before the ACPI tables are generated. > > I have been thinking about dropping req_seq and doing everything when > the device is bound, but haven't dug into it in detail yet. regards, Wolfgang