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: <10318344.MgarAUWL0a@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:02:37 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
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 Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:05:09 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 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.

Well, if we can reduce the code size this way, please send a patch.

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/