On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:49:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Thanks, I have an update, though. > > In a recent discussion with Darren we've come to the conlusion that > having a parent with PRP0001 and "compatible" and a child with PRP0001 only > (without "compatible") is useful in cases when one complex device is > represented by a hierarchy of "device" objects (in analogy with device > nodes in a DT that have no struct device representations). Thus it isn't > useful to complain that "compatible" is not present in such cases.
OK, I see. > Updated patch: > > --- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > Subject: ACPI / property: Refine consistency check for PRP0001 > > Refine the check for the presence of the "compatible" property > if the PRP0001 device ID is present in the device's list of > ACPI/PNP IDs to also print the message if _DSD is missing > entirely or the format of it is incorrect. > > One special case to take into accout is that the "compatible" > property need not be provided for devices having the PRP0001 > device ID in their lists of ACPI/PNP IDs if they are ancestors > of PRP0001 devices with the "compatible" property present. > This is to cover heriarchies of device objects where the kernel > is only supposed to use a struct device representation for the > topmost one and the others represent, for example, functional > blocks of a composite device. > > While at it, reduce the log level of the message to "info" > and reduce the log level of the "broken _DSD" message to > "debug" (noise reduction). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> Still looks fine to me, Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
