[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071121181318.75ceeb4d@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:13:18 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: trenn@...e.de
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"yakui.zhao" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PNP cleanups - Version 2 - Pass struct pnp_dev to
pnp_clean_resource_table for cleanup reasons
> > in the pnp_dev. That is, the resources are tied to the device, with struct
> > pnp_resource_table being no more than a handy container to group them under
> > a single name.
> Putting the count into struct resource does not make sense.
Can you explain that claim ?
> The idea is to not rely on the exact pnp resource table structure and
> abstracting this to macros. If krealloc approach works,
> dev->res.port_resource[i].start would even still work, if not, it's
> easier to alter the pnp resource table and the macros internally.
Externally in drivers yes. Internally in code no - it makes the code
harder to work with.
> > Yes, I dont know how he intends to deal with this (nor, in fact, just how
> > dynamic things are supposed to end up to begin with) so over to Thomas.
> Krealloc should only get used at early pnp init time, when the BIOS
> structures are parsed. The devices shouldn't be active then...
> A bit of a problem, as said, could be the sysfs interfaces, there it
> must be insured krealloc is not used anymore.
I don't think its that simple but that can be dealt with one the changes
are in place if the objects are sensibly laid out.
Alan
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists