On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:25 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wednesday 06 September 2006 20:03, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 04:04 +0800, keith mannthey wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:59 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote: > > > > From one of the ACPI guys: > > > > > > > > > Get hid > > > > > Look for driver > > > > > If you find a match, load it > > > > > If no match, get CID > > > > > Look for driver > > > > > If you find a match, load it > > > > > If you did not find an hid or cid match, punt > > > > > > I think this is what my patch is doing. > > > > > > when looking for a driver: (acpi_bus_find_driver) > > > I check against the HID > > > return if found > > > Then I check against the CID > > > return if found > > > else > > > punt > > > > > > Any objections to pushing this into -mm and dropping the motherboard > > > change? > > > I'd prefer not take this way. The ACPI driver model is already mess > > enough, let's don't make it worse. We are converting the ACPI driver > > model to Linux driver model, this will make the attempt difficult. > > I see that driver_bind() and driver_probe_device() don't mesh well > with the idea that multiple drivers might be able to claim a device, > because there doesn't seem to be a way to prioritize one driver > over another. Is that the problem you're referring to? Yes. > If we decide that "try HID first, then try CID" is the right thing, > I think we should figure out how to make that work. Maybe that > means extending the driver model somehow. Don't think it's easy, especially no other bus needs it I guess. > > We can let the motherboard driver not bind to your device (say we didn't > > register the motherboard driver, but just reserve the resource of the > > deivce). Is it ok to you? (I remember Bjorn said he wants to reserve the > > mem region of the device too). > > My point was that ACPI tells us what resources the device uses, > and we should reserve all of them so we accurately model the system. > > Reserving resources without registering the driver sounds like a hack > to work around broken behavior elsewhere, so I don't think it's a > good idea. Do we really need the memory hotplug device returns pnp0c01/pnp0c02? What's the purpose? 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
