On Friday 05 of October 2012 16:10:43 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> > Your patches seem to affect all devices in the ACPI namespace added after
> >> > boot, though, not only host
On Friday 05 of October 2012 16:10:43 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
Your patches seem to affect all devices in the ACPI namespace added after
boot, though, not only host
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > Your patches seem to affect all devices in the ACPI namespace added after
>> > boot, though, not only host bridges.
>>
>> yes, but it still should be safe.
>
> I'm not really
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> during adding pci root bus hotplug, Bjorn found some unsafe searching
> >> that caused by pci_bus_add_devices.
>
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
during adding pci root bus hotplug, Bjorn found some unsafe searching
that caused by pci_bus_add_devices.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:46:39 Yinghai Lu wrote:
Your patches seem to affect all devices in the ACPI namespace added after
boot, though, not only host bridges.
yes, but it still should be safe.
I'm not really
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> during adding pci root bus hotplug, Bjorn found some unsafe searching
>> that caused by pci_bus_add_devices.
>
> Do you have a link to a description of that problem?
Maybe
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> At last we could remove all
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
>> >
>> > Do I understand correctly that you just
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that you just want to prevent acpi_pci_root_driver
> > from binding to the host
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
>
> Do I understand correctly that you just want to prevent acpi_pci_root_driver
> from binding to the host bridge's struct acpi_device created while we're
> walking the ACPI
On Wednesday 03 of October 2012 16:00:10 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
> and acpi_pci_root_start.
>
> That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
> acpi device could be created and added early. So
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> To answer your specific question, yes, I do think drivers that are
>> statically built in probably should be registered before devices are
>> enumerated. That way, the boot-time case
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 11:47:46 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
> > and acpi_pci_root_start.
> >
> > That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 13:44:42 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> To answer your specific question, yes, I do think drivers that are
> statically built in probably should be registered before devices are
> enumerated. That way, the boot-time case is more similar to the
> hot-add case.
>
> Obviously, for
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all the ACPI devices below
>> the
>> host bridge already exist before the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all the ACPI devices below the
> host bridge already exist before the pci_root.c driver claims the bridge,
> while at hot-add time,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
> and acpi_pci_root_start.
>
> That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
> acpi device could be created and added early. So
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
and acpi_pci_root_start.
That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
acpi device could be created and added early. So .start
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all the ACPI devices below the
host bridge already exist before the pci_root.c driver claims the bridge,
while
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all the ACPI devices below
the
host
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
To answer your specific question, yes, I do think drivers that are
statically built in probably should be registered before devices are
enumerated. That way, the boot-time case is more similar to the
hot-add case.
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 13:44:42 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
This is a fundamental
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 11:47:46 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
and acpi_pci_root_start.
That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote:
To answer your specific question, yes, I do think drivers that are
statically built in probably should be registered before devices are
enumerated.
On Wednesday 03 of October 2012 16:00:10 Yinghai Lu wrote:
Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
and acpi_pci_root_start.
That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
acpi device could be created and added early. So .start
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
Do I understand correctly that you just want to prevent acpi_pci_root_driver
from binding to the host bridge's struct acpi_device created while we're
walking the ACPI
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
Do I understand correctly that you just want to prevent acpi_pci_root_driver
from binding to the host
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
At last we could remove all acpi_bus_start workaround.
Do I understand correctly that you
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 14:31:46 Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
At last we could remove all
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 15:01:21 Yinghai Lu wrote:
during adding pci root bus hotplug, Bjorn found some unsafe searching
that caused by pci_bus_add_devices.
Do you have a link to a description of that problem?
Maybe
Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
and acpi_pci_root_start.
That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
acpi device could be created and added early. So .start could device_add
pci device that are found in
Now acpi_pci_root_driver has two ops: .add and .start, aka acpi_pci_root_add
and acpi_pci_root_start.
That is for hotplug handling: .add need to return early to make sure all
acpi device could be created and added early. So .start could device_add
pci device that are found in
34 matches
Mail list logo
