Hi Bin, -----"Bin Meng" <bmeng...@gmail.com> schrieb: ----- > Betreff: Re: [PATCH v2 00/35] dm: Add programmatic generation of ACPI tables > (part B) > > Hi Wolfgang, Andy, > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:34 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > NOTE: I have resent this as v1 to avoid confusion > > > > This is split from the original series in an attempt to get things applied > > in chunks. > > > > This part includes: > > - writing basic ACPI code for integers, strings, names, packages > > - writing descriptors for GPIO, I2C, interrupts, SPI > > - writing code to enable/disable ACPI peripherals via GPIOs > > - writing SSDT and DSDT tables > > - additional ways to determine ACPI device names > > > > Much of this code is taken from coreboot and I have tried to avoid > > changing the original code for no reason. Changes include: > > - splitting the acpi_dp functions into their own file > > - adding tests > > - adding (lots of) comments > > - using a context pointer instead of global variables > > - tidying up some code where couldn't resist (e.g. > > acpigen_emit_namestring()) > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Fix memset of I2C descriptor > > - Fix memset of SPI descriptor > > > > Changes in v1: > > - Capitalise ACPI_OPS_PTR > > - Split into more patches for review > > - Add tests > > - Rebase on top of common.h series > > - Fix 'the an' typo > > - Move header definitions into this patch > > - Update sandbox driver slightly for testing > > - Switch parameter order of _acpi_fill_ssdt() and make it static > > - Fix 'sentinal' and 'METHOD_FILL_SDDT' typos > > - Correct the commit subject > > - Generalise the ACPI function recursion with acpi_recurse_method() > > - Generalise the ACPI function recursion with acpi_recurse_method() > > - Use OEM_TABLE_ID instead of ACPI_TABLE_CREATOR > > - Update ACPI_DSTATUS enum > > - Drop writing of coreboot tables > > - Generalise the ACPI function recursion with acpi_recurse_method() > > - Use acpi,ddn instead of acpi,desc > > - Rename to acpi_device_infer_name() > > - Update newly created sandbox tests > > > > Since you were involved a lot in the discussion in the part A series, > would you please let me know if you get some time to review this?
Unfortunately, I don't have as much time now for review of part B as I had for part A. I already started reviewing part B and I will try to continue when time allows. regards, Wolfgang
