From patchwork Thu Mar 5 14:56:01 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Marco Felsch X-Patchwork-Id: 11421985 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D8514B7 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A1D20848 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725938AbgCEO4H (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:56:07 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([85.220.165.71]:43251 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726004AbgCEO4H (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:56:07 -0500 Received: from dude02.hi.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:100:1d::28] helo=dude02.lab.pengutronix.de) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9ruu-0003O3-5k; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:56:04 +0100 Received: from mfe by dude02.lab.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j9rut-0001Cx-Mk; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:56:03 +0100 From: Marco Felsch To: rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com Cc: kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: ACPI: fix port numbering example Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 15:56:01 +0100 Message-Id: <20200305145601.3467-1-m.felsch@pengutronix.de> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::28 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mfe@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org If I understood it right the ports should be numbered using the "port" property and not the "reg" property. I stumbled over it during extending the v4l2_fwnode_parse_link() helper which also use the "port" property. Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch --- Hi, I don't know if this is right since I'm not a ACPI guy *sorry* Anyway reading the doc description and the v4l2_fwnode_parse_link() code give me a 2/3 chance. Regards, Marco Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/graph.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/graph.rst b/Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/graph.rst index 1a6ce7afba5e..dcf0102aeb29 100644 --- a/Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/graph.rst +++ b/Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/graph.rst @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ A simple example of this is show below:: Name (PRT0, Package() { ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"), Package () { - Package () { "reg", 0 }, + Package () { "port", 0 }, }, ToUUID("dbb8e3e6-5886-4ba6-8795-1319f52a966b"), Package () {