On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:20 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Friday 01 September 2006 17:01, keith mannthey wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:15 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > The current ACPI driver binding algorithm in acpi_bus_find_driver() > > > looks at each driver, checking whether it can match either the _HID > > > or the _CID of a device. Since we try the motherboard driver first, > > > it matches the memory device _CID. > > > > Ok I reverted the motherboard driver patch and cooked up the following > > patch that works for my issue. > > > > It creates the idea that acpi_match_ids has a type of request to check > > against for _HID, _CID or both. See acpi_bus_match_req. I then fix up > > all the needed callers to change the API to acpi_match_ids and > > acpi_bus_match and have callers can say what they want to match > > against. > > > > Then in acpi_bus_find_driver I have it do 2 passes to search for _HID > > first then the _CID. > > > > Does this look like it is in the right ballpark or should we be doing > > something else? Built/tested against 2.6.18-rc4-mm3. > > Conceptually I like this much better than mucking with the motherboard > driver. I'm not sure the important people have signed off on this > strategy of binding with _HID first, then _CID (hi, Len :-)) Maybe > there are ramifications that we need to consider. But I think it > is a better match for "what people expect should happen." ACPI folks can we get some response to this? This problem has been reported a few times against the -mm tree and I would like to get the proper fix (whatever it is) upstream sometime soon. Bjorn thanks for the help and for pointing the error reports in the right direction. Thanks, Keith - 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
