Re: [PATCH v16 0/9] LPC: legacy ISA I/O support

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

On 13/03/2018 10:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on this patch-set, all the I/O accesses to Hip06/Hip07 LPC
>>>>>> peripherals can
>>>>>> be supported without any changes on the existing ipmi-si driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole patchset has been tested on Hip07 D05 board both using DTB
>>>>>> and ACPI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> V15 thread here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/26/584
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for an update.
>>>>> Though I answered to previous thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: I'm fine with the series as long as maintainers are fine
>>>>> (Rafael et al.). On personal side I think that the handler approach is
>>>>> better. Details are in v15 thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input and continued support. As I mentioned in reply in
>>>> v15,
>>>> the handler support would (or has) faced issues. And Rafael seems fine
>>>> with
>>>> deferring the probe to the LLDD in Patch #7/9
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>>> Well, the only sort-of concern is that these devices may not be
>>> "serial bus slaves" in general, so the naming is slightly confusing.
>>>
>>
>> Right, the name.
>>
>> The key point is that we model the bus the same as other serial buses like
>> I2C or SPI, so require the same treatment from the ACPI scan.
>>
>> Would you prefer acpi_is_serial_bus_slave() and
>> acpi_device_flags.serial_bus_slave symbols be modified also?
>
> Yeah, preferably.
>
> You can rename them to acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent() and
> acpi_device_flags.enumeration_by_parent, respectively, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> At least the names would match the purpose then. :-)
>
> And please update the comment in acpi_default_enumeration() while at it.

Hi Rafael,

That should be ok. I can just add this mentioned modification to my 
series and send for review.

All the best,
John

>
> .
>