On Monday, March 03, 2014 10:11:48 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 00:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:11:12 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > > > Because of the growing demand for enumerating ACPI devices to platform > > > bus, > > > this patch changes the code to enumerate ACPI devices with _HID/_CID to > > > platform bus by default, unless the device already has a scan handler > > > attached. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 28 ---------------------------- > > > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > > index dbfe49e..33376a9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c > > > @@ -22,24 +22,6 @@ > > > > > > ACPI_MODULE_NAME("platform"); > > > > > > -/* > > > - * 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" }, > > > - { "ACPI0003" }, > > > - { "VPC2004" }, > > > - { "BCM4752" }, > > > - > > > - /* Intel Smart Sound Technology */ > > > - { "INT33C8" }, > > > - { "80860F28" }, > > > - > > > - { } > > > -}; > > > - > > > /** > > > * acpi_create_platform_device - Create platform device for ACPI device > > > node > > > * @adev: ACPI device node to create a platform device for. > > > @@ -125,13 +107,3 @@ int acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device > > > *adev, > > > kfree(resources); > > > return 1; > > > } > > > - > > > -static struct acpi_scan_handler platform_handler = { > > > - .ids = acpi_platform_device_ids, > > > - .attach = acpi_create_platform_device, > > > -}; > > > - > > > -void __init acpi_platform_init(void) > > > -{ > > > - acpi_scan_add_handler(&platform_handler); > > > -} > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > index 5967338..61af32e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > @@ -2022,14 +2022,15 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct > > > acpi_device *device) > > > handler = acpi_scan_match_handler(hwid->id, &devid); > > > if (handler) { > > > ret = handler->attach(device, devid); > > > - if (ret > 0) { > > > + if (ret > 0) > > > device->handler = handler; > > > - break; > > > - } else if (ret < 0) { > > > - break; > > > - } > > > + if (ret) > > > + goto end; > > > } > > > } > > > +end: > > > + if (!list_empty(&device->pnp.ids) && !device->handler) > > > > I'm a bit concerned that this check will create platform devices for too > > many > > ACPI device objects. > > agreed. there are some devices created unexpected by this patch, e.g. on > my test machine, I can see > > /sys/bus/platform/devices/LNXSYSTM:00 (ACPI system bus/root node) > /sys/bus/platform/devices/PNP0000:00 (PIC) > /sys/bus/platform/devices/PNP0100:00 (system timer?) > > > Shouldn't we require that _HID or at least _CID is > > present for that? > > > I do not think so. > only devices that invoke acpi_add_ids() may have pnp.ids but no > _HID/_CID, right? > I did a check in the code, those devices include:
Well, I did that too. > ACPI root node > ACPI video > ACPI bay > ACPI dock > IBM SMBus > ACPI Power resource > ACPI processor > ACPI thermal > ACPI fixed power/sleep button > > IMO, only the ACPI root node, ACPI power resource, possibly ACPI > processor are the ones that we do not want to see in platform bus. No, we don't want any of them. So pretty much as I said, only if _HID/_CID is present, please? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
