On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:55 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tuesday 27 June 2006 19:02, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 14:02 +0200, castet.matthieu@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > Is only PNP0A03 is producer type in __all__ ACPI possible devices ? > > > If not we will have the same problem with others devices... > > > > > > I don't think blacklist is the solution : pnpacpi should be able to handle all > > > ressources types : we should complete the implementation instead of blacklist > > > devices our implementation doesn't support. > > > > > > If there are broken ACPI bios, there should be firmware update, a patched dsdt > > > or a quirk, but no "quirk and no generic solution". > > > From my understanding, if the device is really a PNP device its resource > > should not be producer. > > I know PNP as currently implemented doesn't support resource producers. > But I don't think of that as a restriction of PNP itself. I think of > it as an area where a new back end (PNPACPI) added functionality, and > PNP should be enhanced to comprehend it. Ok, it's fine ACPI PNP handles resource producers. > I think the current scheme where some devices are claimed using > PNPACPI and pnp_register_driver(), and others are claimed using > acpi_bus_register_driver() directly, is confusing at best. > > I'd rather have ALL devices handled by PNPACPI, and either extend > the PNP infrastructure to comprehend the new functionality of ACPI > (e.g., new resource types like PCI bus numbers, ACPI events), or > maybe just provide a "to_acpi_dev()" that takes a PNP device and > returns the corresponding ACPI device. That's a big deal. We had a lot of discussions about this like introducing ACPI bus, but frankly there isn't a solid direction which bus ACPI devices should belong to. > > Or could we take this way, merge both patches (both patches are good to > > me), which should be safer. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to export root > > bridge to pnp layer to me. > > One reason I don't like the blacklist is because it just papers over > the problem without leaving a clue about how to really solve it. > For example, if PNP is enhanced later to comprehend resource producers, > we won't know to go back and remove things from the blacklist. So lets have a note there. It (no blacklist) is meaningful to have all ACPI devices handled by PNP layer, but currently not. We don't expect a PNP driver for root bridge. And we will take risk of buggy BIOS. Thanks, Shaohua - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
