[alsa-devel] [PATCHv2 0/3] I2C and SPI dev_name change for ACPI enumerated slaves

[Wolfram Sang]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 02:18:06PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 01, 2013 02:35:53 PM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Second version of the set that changes I2C and SPI slave device names
> > to be generated from stable ACPI device names on ACPI 5 based systems
> > instead of using bus numbers which could change.
> > 
> > Slave device name change goes as
> > 
> > 	"x-00yz" -> "i2c-INTABCD:ij"
> > 	"spix.y" -> "spi-INTABCD:ij"
> > 
> > This version adds patch to include/acpi/acpi_bus.h that allow us to
> > remove #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) checks that were added in the
> > first version.
> > 
> > Set goes on top linux-pm/linux-next commit e56b4d2.
> > 
> > First version here:
> > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2013-October/067737.html
> > 
> > Jarkko Nikula (3):
> >   ACPI: Expose struct acpi_device and acpi_bus_get_device() to non-ACPI
> >     builds
> >   i2c: Use stable dev_name for ACPI enumerated I2C slaves
> >   spi: Use stable dev_name for ACPI enumerated SPI slaves
> > 
> >  drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c  | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  drivers/spi/spi.c       | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> >  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h |  9 +++++++--
> >  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> Looks good to me.  If there are no objections, I can merge these through my tree.

Which is basically fine with me. Do you want to have it in 3.13 already?
I mean renaming the devices could lead to regressions, so I'd rather be
conservative and aim for 3.14.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20131101/fe9c305f/attachment.sig>