On Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:50:37 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 17:11 +0800, 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 <rui.zh...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > 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)
> > + acpi_create_platform_device(device, NULL);
>
> I just found a big problem in this proposal, which affects all the
> optional scan handlers.
What do you mean by "optional"? Such that can be compiled out?
> The problem is that, if we disable a scan handler, platform device nodes
> would be created instead by the code above, because there is no scan
> handler attached for those ACPI nodes.
If "we disable a scan handled" means "we compile it out", I'm not sure
why creating platform devices for the device objects in question will
be incorrect?
Rafael
--
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/
