[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1918088.8lbRqmEGMX@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:43 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Replace struct acpi_bus_ops with enum type
On Monday, December 10, 2012 06:26:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our
> >> patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent->ops.bind()
> >> stuff in acpi_add_single_object() which calls it even drivers_autoprobe is
> >> set.
> >
> > Sorry, that should have been "which calls it even when drivers_autoprobe is
> > not set". I need to be more careful.
> >
>
> oh, Jiang Liu had one patch to remove that workaround.
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git;a=commitdiff;h=b40dba80c2b8395570d8357e6b3f417c27c84504
>
> ACPI/pci-bind: remove bind/unbind callbacks from acpi_device_ops
OK, so I'm looking at the current code, which for me is the master branch of
the linux-pm.git tree (the linux-next branch is the same ATM), and I'm not
seeing acpi_pci_unbind_cb() in there. So surely this patch applies to
something different, right? In which case I wonder what reason there is for
me to look at it at all?
Besides, I think it may be done differently and in a more straightforward
way. Namely, on top of my current patchset, it is guaranteed that not only
struct pci_dev objects will always be registered after the companion struct
acpi_device ones, but also they always will be *created* after those
companion objects have been registered. So in principle we can populate
a new struct pci_dev's ACPI handle as soon as in pci_scan_device(),
next to pci_set_of_node(). Then, we can do something like acpi_pci_bind(),
although without the whole acpi_get_pci_dev() nonsense, in pci_setup_device(),
in which case we won't need to do it anywhere else.
As an added benefit, acpi_platform_notify() would then see a populated ACPI
handle in that struct pci_dev when finally registering the PCI device, so it
wouldn't need to do the whole acpi_find_bridge_device() and type->find_device()
dance.
> Maybe you can review that patches in my for-pci-next2...
> those are ACPI related anyway.
I can, provided that (1) they are based on top of my tree or v3.7 and (2)
they don't conflict with patches we're currently discussing.
> those patches have been there for a while, and Bjorn did not have time
> to digest them.
Well, Bjorn's review bandwidth is limited and we need to take that into
account.
> or you prefer I resend updated version as huge whole patchset?
No, no huge patchsets, please. Let's take one step at a time, so that
everyone involved/interested can understand what's going on, OK?
My review capacity also is not unlimited, mind you. I can't promise I'll
have the time to review more than a few patches a day (where "a few" is
rather less than "several").
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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