Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12026357.O9o76ZdvQC@kreacher> <2657553.mvXUDI8C0e@kreacher>
 <5606189.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher> <e9666883-3285-36a6-6278-ace219b88f3c@huawei.com>
 <CAHp75Ve-Cm43HhqqxxfmKTbC_Gkx=0aAcj0jJmA=-Nr-NT1FqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdT1YZUQbdHupA2RmucUBSzypcPwKBgSa4=sVQAhC+Vsw@mail.gmail.com> <61fbd71b-9c36-345c-7aed-561b81c34259@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <61fbd71b-9c36-345c-7aed-561b81c34259@huawei.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:05:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdxaBG8Sj3j7Wa7BrZOrn1j2eAtJMw0N8z255HwMSohYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child()
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 01/07/2022 12:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>> On 30/06/2022 19:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

...

> >>> However Yang Yingliang spotted a pre-existing bug in the ACPI probe and
> >>> sent a fix today (coincidence?):
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220701094352.2104998-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/T/#u
> >>>
> >>> And they conflict. This code has been this way for years, so I just
> >>> suggest Yang Yingliang resends the fix on top off Rafael's change.
> >>
> >> Wondering if Yang can actually switch that to use
> >> platform_device_register_full().
>
> Maybe that would work and simplify things. Let me check it.
>
> BTW, when we originally upstreamed this driver there was some ACPI
> platform device registration code which you/we thought could be factored
> out later. I can't remember it. I was looking through lore but couldn't
> find it. I don't remember it being so important, though.

My suggestion is definitely not for the fix itself, but as a follow up.

> > And for the record, I think the Fixes even for very rare bug hits
> > should go first.
>
> ok, I have to admit that I was going to feel awkward asking Rafael to
> deal with this fix by having a v4 on top of it.

I don't think it's a problem as long as we have an immutable branch /
tag with that patch. Another approach could be that Rafael can take it
as a precursor for his series and route via ACPI tree, but let's hear
what he thinks about this himself.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko