On Friday 29 February 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:14:26 +0300 Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru> w=
rote:
quoted text >=20
> > From: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
> >=20
> > Make sure input device for ACPI button gets proper place
> > in device tree.
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
> >=20
> > ---
> >=20
> > drivers/acpi/button.c | 1 +
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >=20
> >=20
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/button.c b/drivers/acpi/button.c
> > index 24a7865..6c5da83 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/button.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/button.c
> > @@ -449,6 +449,7 @@ static int acpi_button_add(struct acpi_device *devi=
ce)
quoted text > > input->phys =3D button->phys;
> > input->id.bustype =3D BUS_HOST;
> > input->id.product =3D button->type;
> > + input->dev.parent =3D &device->dev;
> > =20
> > switch (button->type) {
> > case ACPI_BUTTON_TYPE_POWER:
> >=20
>=20
> What are the consequences of the bug which you've fixed?
>=20
There is no direct negative impact; this is mostly cleanup that unifies
sysfs representation of ACPI input devices. The patch was submitted for
2.6.24-rc at the same time as similar patches for other ACPI input devices
but was lost for whatever reason.
quoted text > It helps very much if the changelog explains things like this so we can
> decide whether the patch is needed in 2.6.25 or even 2.6.24.x.
>=20
I guess it can safely wait for post-2.6.25.
