>-----Original Message----- >From: Uwe Bugla [mailto:uwe.bugla@xxxxxx] >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:24 PM >To: Li, Shaohua; bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Brown, Len; akpm@xxxxxxxx; ambx1@xxxxxxxxxx; >castet.matthieu@xxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Re: [patch 11/18] pnpacpi: reject ACPI_PRODUCER resources > > >-------- 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 just took one ia64 box I ever saw as an example, but it's not unique to ia64 I think. >I simply have big problems understanding the attitude behind your behaviour. Me too :) >> > > 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? I want to emphasize I have no objection to merge the producer patch now but still think root bridge should be black list. 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
