[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190520191209.GA29776@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 21:12:09 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Liming Sun <lsun@...lanox.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...lanox.com>,
David Woods <dwoods@...lanox.com>,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] platform/mellanox: Add bootctl driver for
Mellanox BlueField Soc
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 06:07:44PM +0000, Liming Sun wrote:
> > > +static struct platform_driver mlxbf_bootctl_driver = {
> > > + .probe = mlxbf_bootctl_probe,
> > > + .driver = {
> > > + .name = "mlxbf-bootctl",
> > > + .groups = mlxbf_bootctl_groups,
> > > + .acpi_match_table = mlxbf_bootctl_acpi_ids,
> >
> > Why is an acpi driver a platform driver? Isn't there a "real" acpi
> > driver interface you should be tieing into instead?
> >
> > Only use a platform driver as an absolute last resort. I don't think
> > that is the case here.
>
> The driver is trying to configure boot-swapping and display secure state,
> and is defined/initiated in ACPI table in UEFI. It seems a little hard to
> categorize this driver to any existing subsystem. Any suggestion
> where it might be a better fit (like drivers/misc, drivers/firmware, etc)?
> Please correct me if I misunderstand the comments. Thanks!.
The comment was asking why an acpi driver is a platform driver, but then
I went and looked now at a bunch of acpi drivers, and they all are
platform drivers :(
Anyway, drivers/acpi/ seems like the best place for this file, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists