Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200

[Jeremy Cline]

On 01/28/2018 03:40 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:43:30 +0000
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:24:01 +0000
>> Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2017 12:21 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
>>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:52:34 +0000
>>>> Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>> Some BOSC0200 acpi_device-s describe two accelerometers in a single ACPI
>>>>> device. Check for a companion device and handle a second i2c_client
>>>>> if it is present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx>    
>>>> The requirement for this is still horrible, but you have done a nice
>>>> clean job on implementing it.
>>>>
>>>> I'll let this sit for a few more days though before applying it.
>>>> Probably next weekend if we don't get any feedback before then.    
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I didn't see this land anywhere (I was looking in
>>> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git, maybe that's not
>>> the right place?) and I just wanted to make sure this didn't get lost in
>>> the holiday shuffle.  
>> It did indeed get lost - thanks for the reminder.  Now applied to the
>> togreg branch of iio.git.  However, unfortunately we may be too near
>> to the merge window opening for it to make it.  Depends on what Linus
>> says later today when rc8 comes out.
> 
> I've added some #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI defenses against the case
> of no ACPI support being compiled in.  Alternative would be to add
> stubs for those functions that don't have them...
> 
> probably just acpi_device_hid.
> 
> But that would take much longer.  Feel free to propose it and a patch
> removing the ifdef fun if you like!

Great, thanks for handling that. I'll look at taking care of the stubs
and whatnot.


Regards,
Jeremy