linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070418030343.GB12756@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:03:43 +0000
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, lenb@...nel.org,
	"linux-acpi@...r" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:57:49PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 12:53 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007 8:59 am, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > > ...
> > > > Assuming they all adopt that same "parallel tree" model, that seems
> > > > like a good idea.  The tools will likely need to understand how ACPI
> > > > and OF differ, but there's no point in reserving more names than we
> > > > really need.  Though it may be that "parallel trees" should go away.
> > > 
> > > If mapping is indeed 1-to-1 in acpi... it would be nice to just merge
> > > the trees.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate a bit ... what do you mean by "merge"?
> > 
> > One way to merge the trees would be to relocate
> > 
> > 	/sys/devices/pci* --> ... this *HAS* a PNP node
> > 	/sys/devices/pnp*/X --> /sys/devices/acpi_system*/.../X
> > 
> > Not having the PCI root be its PNPACPI node seems more buglike
> > to me than anything else.  And for other nodes...
> 
> Looks like the i8042 serial nodes will be bizarre too:
> 
> 	/sys/devices/pnp0/00:09
> 		... touchpad's PNP node
> 	/sys/devices/acpi_system:00/device:00/PNP0A03:00/device:15/PNP0F13:00
> 		... its ACPI node
> 	/sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio4
> 		... its serio node
> 
> That seems like two nodes too many, but without me trying to twist
> my mind around i8042 issues, I can't quite speculate why struct
> serio "is-a" device rather than "has-a" device (the PNP node) as
> would be the case with a more normal driver structure.
> 
> But the existence of that device_add() in serio.c sure explains why
> the PNP node doesn't get associated with the input class device one
> would expect from knowing that 00:09 is the touchpad.

Ick, how can we fix this up?

> And hmm, just this morning I saw email from Greg re-affirming that
> drivers should not device_add().  Converting such legacy drivers is
> simple though, right?  :)

Heh, yeah right, they can remain platform drivers :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/