On Monday, December 10, 2012 06:26:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, thanks for the pointers.  I actually see more differences between our
> >> patchsets.  For one example, you seem to have left the parent->ops.bind()
> >> stuff in acpi_add_single_object() which calls it even drivers_autoprobe is
> >> set.
> >
> > Sorry, that should have been "which calls it even when drivers_autoprobe is
> > not set".  I need to be more careful.
> >
> 
> oh,  Jiang Liu had one patch to remove that workaround.
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git;a=commitdiff;h=b40dba80c2b8395570d8357e6b3f417c27c84504
> 
> ACPI/pci-bind: remove bind/unbind callbacks from acpi_device_ops

OK, so I'm looking at the current code, which for me is the master branch of
the linux-pm.git tree (the linux-next branch is the same ATM), and I'm not
seeing acpi_pci_unbind_cb() in there.  So surely this patch applies to
something different, right?  In which case I wonder what reason there is for
me to look at it at all?

Besides, I think it may be done differently and in a more straightforward
way.  Namely, on top of my current patchset, it is guaranteed that not only
struct pci_dev objects will always be registered after the companion struct
acpi_device ones, but also they always will be *created* after those
companion objects have been registered.  So in principle we can populate
a new struct pci_dev's ACPI handle as soon as in pci_scan_device(),
next to pci_set_of_node().  Then, we can do something like acpi_pci_bind(),
although without the whole acpi_get_pci_dev() nonsense, in pci_setup_device(),
in which case we won't need to do it anywhere else.

As an added benefit, acpi_platform_notify() would then see a populated ACPI
handle in that struct pci_dev when finally registering the PCI device, so it
wouldn't need to do the whole acpi_find_bridge_device() and type->find_device()
dance.

> Maybe you can review that patches in my for-pci-next2...
> those are ACPI related anyway.

I can, provided that (1) they are based on top of my tree or v3.7 and (2)
they don't conflict with patches we're currently discussing.

> those patches have been there for a while, and Bjorn did not have time
> to digest them.

Well, Bjorn's review bandwidth is limited and we need to take that into
account.

> or you prefer I resend updated version as huge whole patchset?

No, no huge patchsets, please.  Let's take one step at a time, so that
everyone involved/interested can understand what's going on, OK?

My review capacity also is not unlimited, mind you.  I can't promise I'll
have the time to review more than a few patches a day (where "a few" is
rather less than "several").

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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to