-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:13:36 +0800 Von: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> An: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> Betreff: Re: [patch 11/18] pnpacpi: reject ACPI_PRODUCER resources > 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. Hi Shaohua, > 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. Where is the deeper sense of this discussion as long as the AS-IS-STATE conforms to a multiplicity of busses like ISA, PCI, AGP, please? And why please didn´t you mix yourself in at an earlier point of time? And why don´t you offer more profound material and information on the conflicts you saw on your IA64 architecture? I simply have big problems understanding the attitude behind your behaviour. > > > > 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. In how far "currently not", please? At what point of time will this make sense according to your opinion? > We don't expect a PNP driver for root bridge. > And we will take risk of buggy BIOS. What please has a buggy BIOS to do with a more cryptic or more sophisticated ACPI PNP concept? > > Thanks, > Shaohua > Regards Uwe -- "Feel free" – 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail - 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
