linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rev.2 1/6] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects from probing ACPI drivers

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: <1355868912.18964.381.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:15:12 -0700
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing0307@...il.com>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rev.2 1/6] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects
 from probing ACPI drivers

On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 22:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
 :
> > We need to decide which module is responsible for calling .bind().  I
> > think it should be the ACPI scan module, not the ACPI PCI root bridge
> > driver, because:
> >  - bind() needs to be called when _ADR device is added.  The ACPI scan
> > module can scan any devices, while the PCI root driver can only scan
> > when it is added.
> >  - acpi_bus_remove() calls unbind() at hot-remove.  The same module
> > should be responsible for both bind() and unbind() handling.
> >  - It is cleaner to keep struct acpi_device_ops interface to be called
> > by the ACPI core.
> 
> I agree with that. :-)
> 
> Moreover, I don't think we need acpi_pci_bind() and acpi_pci_unbind() at all.
> 
> > So, I would propose the following changes.
> > 
> >  - Move the acpi_hot_add_bind() call back to the original place after
> > the device_attach() call.
> >  - Rename the name of acpi_hot_add_bind() to something like
> > acpi_bind_adr_device() since it is no longer hot-add only (and is
> > specific to _ADR devices).
> >  - Create its pair function, acpi_unbind_adr_device(), which is called
> > from acpi_bus_remove().  When a constructor interface is introduced, its
> > destructor should be introduced as well. 
> >  - Remove the binding procedure from acpi_pci_root_add().  This should
> > be done in patch [2/6].
> 
> Well, what about moving the code from acpi_pci_bind()/acpi_pci_unbind()
> somewhere else and removing those things altogether?

Sounds nice.  It will be bonus point if you can do that. :-)

Thanks,
-Toshi


--
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/