linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] ACPI/platform: Add ACPI ID for Intel MBI device

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]

Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:21:30 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	"David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] ACPI/platform: Add ACPI ID for Intel MBI device

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:17:03PM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> This is per the requirement in Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt:
> 
> "Currently the kernel is not able to automatically determine from which ACPI
> device it should make the corresponding platform device so we need to add
> the ACPI device explicitly to acpi_platform_device_ids list defined in
> drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c"

Well sure, but why do you need to be a platform device at all? This 
functionality was intended for cases where we already have a driver for 
the part that enumerated it via some other mechanism. If the driver's 
only intended for ACPI systems then why not just be an ACPI device?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/