On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 14:24 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, January 5, 2018 5:09:32 PM CET Andy Shevchenko wrote:
It appears that at least one current user (patch 3) and upcoming one (patch 2) need to get device name by ACPI HID.
Here we introduce acpi_dev_get_first_match_name() based on code done for acpi_dev_present() and reuse it where appropriate.
The series has been tested on Intel Edison with non-ACPI and ACPI enabled versions of U-Boot, while patches 1 and 3 were tested by Pierre.
Since patch 1 and cross subsystem nature of the series I think the best way is to push this (patches 1 and 2) via Rafael's linux-pm tree.
Taking into consideration that patch 3 requires not-yet-applied work from Pierre, I left it for reference, in particular to show the LOC statistics.
Changelog v3:
- add Pierre's tag (I dared to do this for both patches 1 and 3)
- address comment about function name (patch 1)
- add a reference to the first user (patch 1)
- consolidate pin control device possible names in one place (patch
- rebase ASoC patch on not-yet-applied series from Pierre (patch 3),
and
- thus reordered to make it last in the series (patch 3)
Andy Shevchenko (3): ACPI / utils: Introduce acpi_dev_get_first_match_name() gpio: merrifield: Add support of ACPI enabled platforms ASoC: Intel - Convert to use acpi_dev_get_first_match_name()
drivers/acpi/utils.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ drivers/gpio/gpio-merrifield.c | 11 ++++++++- include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 3 +++ include/linux/acpi.h | 6 +++++ include/sound/soc-acpi.h | 7 ------ sound/soc/intel/boards/bytcht_da7213.c | 2 +- sound/soc/intel/boards/bytcht_es8316.c | 2 +- sound/soc/intel/boards/bytcr_rt5640.c | 2 +- sound/soc/intel/boards/bytcr_rt5651.c | 2 +- sound/soc/intel/boards/cht_bsw_rt5645.c | 2 +- sound/soc/intel/boards/cht_bsw_rt5672.c | 2 +- sound/soc/soc-acpi.c | 33 ----------------------
12 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
[1-2/3] applied and I set up a git branch with them to pull from for Mark.
Thanks, Rafael!
So, the roadmap is as I see the following: 1) Mark applies (if no objection) latest version of the second patch series from Pierre... 2) ...followed by PR from Rafael... 3) ...followed by the patch 3 from this series.
Mark, does it sound like a plan to you?