Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200121134157.20396-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
 <20200121134157.20396-6-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <CAMpxmJU5dG49N2FA0oSQsOfKrCr3KQ1BisON4c+nUJJmZQG=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200311085555.GH5379@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> <CAMpxmJVPTKW+sYSJ3dnfF8nLAOKEa4Ob7bpxG0KD3Tkdm+rtYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200323213101.GB21174@kekkonen.localdomain> <CAMpxmJVdyTkZMVuhSy0Ux8VUYTmQN_YEfH-akQsAL3zrwiz8Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200810082549.GD840@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20200810082549.GD840@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:12:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJUKSR-oCGnV1E5XiAMA2nYBy5f_f8=VSoMn0zf+qF39vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] at24: Support probing while off
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@intel.com>,
        linux-media <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chiranjeevi Rapolu <chiranjeevi.rapolu@intel.com>,
        Hyungwoo Yang <hyungwoo.yang@intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@intel.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> wrote:
>

[snip]

> >
> > Rafael: I think that there are two issues with patch 1/5:
> > 1. It adds a very specific boolean flag to a structure that's meant to
> > be very general. As I pointed out in the i2c patch: at the very least
> > this could be made into an int storing flag values, instead of a
> > boolean field. But rather than that - it looks to me more like a
> > device (or bus) feature than a driver feature. Is there any ACPI flag
> > we could use to pass this information to the driver model without
> > changing the driver structure?
>
> To my knowledge there isn't. The fact that I=C2=B2C devices are powered o=
n for
> probe in ACPI based systems is specific to Linux kernel and not ACPI as
> such.
>
> The reason this needs to be in a generic struct is that the device's powe=
r
> state will be changed before any interaction with the driver takes place =
as
> it's the I=C2=B2C framework that powers on the device.
>

I'm not sure I'm following. Looking at patch 1/6 struct device already
exists so why can't this information be conveyed "per device" as
opposed to "per driver"?

[snip]

Bartosz