>-----Original Message----- >From: Lebedev, Vladimir P >Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:08 PM >To: Brown, Len; 'Pavel Machek'; 'kernel list'; 'Andrew Morton' >Cc: '[email protected]' >Subject: RE: [patch] fix boot with acpi=off > >> acpi=off used to be handled by acpi_bus_register_driver() >> for these drivers. > >> But now acpi_lock_ac_dir() and acpi_lock_battery_dir() >> for procfs are inserted before that in the _init functions. >This is fragment from SBS patch. >----------------------------------------- > ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_ac_init"); > >- acpi_ac_dir = proc_mkdir(ACPI_AC_CLASS, acpi_root_dir); >+ acpi_ac_dir = acpi_lock_ac_dir(); > if (!acpi_ac_dir) > return_VALUE(-ENODEV); >- acpi_ac_dir->owner = THIS_MODULE; > > result = acpi_bus_register_driver(&acpi_ac_driver); > if (result < 0) { >- remove_proc_entry(ACPI_AC_CLASS, acpi_root_dir); >+ acpi_unlock_ac_dir(acpi_ac_dir); > return_VALUE(-ENODEV); > } >------------------------------------------ >Order of proc_mkdir and acpi_bus_register_driver is the same >as order of acpi_lock_ac_dir. Could you explain what you meant? > >>Vladimir, >>Any reason that the procfs stuff can't be after the >>acpi_bus_register_driver() >>calls? > >If we move it after acpi_bus_register_driver(), calls to >create files inside battery/ac directories (called from >acpi_bus_register_driver via acpi_{battery,ac}_add()) will fail.
ic. Dunno why acpi_lock_ac_dir() makes pavel's box fail w/ acpi=off. maybe we should simply extend his patch to cover sbs.c and check acpi_disabled at the start of init of these drivers? -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
