linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ACPI / platform: Use struct acpi_scan

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: <20130129080509.GK2239@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:05:09 +0200
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ACPI / platform: Use struct acpi_scan_handler for
 creating devices

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +/* Flags for acpi_create_platform_device */
> +#define ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK	BIT(0)
> +
> +/*
> + * The following ACPI IDs are known to be suitable for representing as
> + * platform devices.
> + */
> +static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_platform_device_ids[] = {
> +
> +	{ "PNP0D40" },
> +
> +	/* Haswell LPSS devices */
> +	{ "INT33C0", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C1", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C2", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C3", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C4", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C5", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C6", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +	{ "INT33C7", ACPI_PLATFORM_CLK },
> +
> +	{ }
> +};

Now that we have everything the platform support code needs in a single
file, should we instead of setting flags and comparing strings like
"INT33C" to find out are we running on Lynxpoint, pass function pointer
that gets called when corresponding device gets created? Something like:

	{ "INT33C0", lpt_clks_init },
	...

Or do you think we need to keep the flags still?

I can prepare a patch if this turns out to be sensible thing to do.
--
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/