Re: [PATCH 00/12] ACPI: add module_acpi_driver() and convert drivers to it
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 01:59:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > This is similar than what is done for other busses before (PCI, I2C, SPI, > platform). It reduces a lot of unnecessary boilerplate code from modules. > > We also remove following redundant check on few drivers: > > if (acpi_disabled) > return -ENODEV; > > as this same check is already done at the beginning of > acpi_bus_register_driver(). > > I think these should all go via ACPI tree because they all depend on the > first patch which adds the macro to the ACPI subsystem. Len, do you have any comments? Could you consider merging these patches? Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH 00/12] ACPI: add module_acpi_driver() and convert drivers to it
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 01:59:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: This is similar than what is done for other busses before (PCI, I2C, SPI, platform). It reduces a lot of unnecessary boilerplate code from modules. We also remove following redundant check on few drivers: if (acpi_disabled) return -ENODEV; as this same check is already done at the beginning of acpi_bus_register_driver(). I think these should all go via ACPI tree because they all depend on the first patch which adds the macro to the ACPI subsystem. Len, do you have any comments? Could you consider merging these patches? Thanks. -- 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/
