Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190711102601.20582-1-chuanhua.han@nxp.com> <CAJZ5v0hY2sL+XfN_4v07_hjvoxgCAt+Q89+wNg5Pky6XKP-mqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hY2sL+XfN_4v07_hjvoxgCAt+Q89+wNg5Pky6XKP-mqA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 00:16:12 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfFtMMQhetRFHrx=Ft7OWwyMqLrwP3sPjT6YVtr8xCHoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: support for NXP i2c controller
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Chuanhua Han <chuanhua.han@nxp.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
        Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>,
        Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:35 PM Chuanhua Han <chuanhua.han@nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Enable NXP i2c controller to boot with ACPI
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanhua Han <chuanhua.han@nxp.com>
>
> Wolfram, any objections to this from the i2c side?

May I propose amendment(s)?

> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>

> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>

If it's kept in order, better to go with it. (Yes, it is as I have checked)
However, property.h should be included instead, see below.

> >         const struct of_device_id *of_id = of_match_device(i2c_imx_dt_ids,
> >                                                            &pdev->dev);
> > +       const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id =
> > +                       acpi_match_device(i2c_imx_acpi_ids,
> > +                                         &pdev->dev);


> >         if (of_id)
> >                 i2c_imx->hwdata = of_id->data;
> > +       else if (acpi_id)
> > +               i2c_imx->hwdata = (struct imx_i2c_hwdata *)
> > +                               acpi_id->driver_data;


The above altogher may be replaced with

const struct imx_i2c_hwdata *match;
...
match = device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
if (match)
 i2c_imx->hwdata = match;
else
...

> > +               .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_imx_acpi_ids),

Since there is no #ifdef guard no need to use ACPI_PTR().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko