On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:13:04AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 01 October 2014 04:17:02 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

Index: linux-pm/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
===================================================================

--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c

@@ -231,6 +231,13 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_gpio
 
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_gpio_leds_match);
 
+static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_gpio_leds_match[] = {
+       { "PRP0001" }, /* Device Tree shoehorned into ACPI */
+       {},
+};
+
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, acpi_gpio_leds_match);
+
 static int gpio_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
        struct gpio_led_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);

@@ -286,6 +293,7 @@ static struct platform_driver gpio_led_d
                .name   = "leds-gpio",
                .owner  = THIS_MODULE,
                .of_match_table = of_gpio_leds_match,
+               .acpi_match_table = acpi_gpio_leds_match,
        },
 };

Is this something you'd have to do in every driver you want to support
_PRP based probing? For the ".acpi_match_table =" reference, I think
you could actually provide a generic acpi_device_id table exported from
core code that you refer to, so each driver just does

	.acpi_match_table = acpi_match_by_of_compatible,

No, I think in absence of drv->acpi_match_table ACPI core should just go and
use drv->of_match_table to do the matching and be done with it.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry