Hi Wolfgang,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 06:47, Wolfgang Wallner
<wolfgang.wall...@br-automation.com> wrote:
>
> Currently the function acpi_check_seq() checks whether dev->req_seq is
> unequal to "-1", but it should actually check dev->seq. Change it to
> check dev->seq.
>
> For req_seq the value "-1" would be a valid (meaning 'any'), while for
> seq the value "-1" means 'none' and is not valid.
>
> Quoting the description of udevice in device.h:
> * @req_seq: Requested sequence number for this device (-1 = any)
> * @seq: Allocated sequence number for this device (-1 = none).
> * This is set up when the device is probed and will be unique
> * within the device's uclass.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Wallner <wolfgang.wall...@br-automation.com>
>
> Fixes: commit fefac0b0643b ("dm: acpi: Enhance acpi_get_name()")
>
> ---
>
> lib/acpi/acpi_device.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
What problem are you seeing without this patch?
At present the ACPI device may not always be probed, and probing is
when the sequence number is currently set up.
I have been thinking about dropping req_seq and doing everything when
the device is bound, but haven't dug into it in detail yet.
Regards,
SImon
