On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:27 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:25 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> 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. > > I agree it's probably not easy, but I think having the right > semantics is more important than fitting cleanly into the > driver model. But I know that without code, I'm just venting > hot air, not contributing to a solution. > > How's the ACPI driver model integration going, anyway? I seem > to recall some patches a while back, but I don't think they're > in the tree yet. > > > Do we really need the memory hotplug device returns pnp0c01/pnp0c02? > > What's the purpose? > > I don't know. But I think Keith already determined that a BIOS change > is not likely. I hate to ask for BIOS changes like this because it > feels like asking them to avoid broken things in Linux. Ok my motherboard patch was dropped from -mm so I am broken again but others are fixed. Is the answer that we do nothing about this issues? I am pretty sure my SSDT table is valid if someone *cannot* point out in the spec where my device is malformed by having both HID and CID I will not be able even start the request to change the BIOS (it would be a waste of my time). Sure having the CID of the memory device may be overkill but is it wrong? Unless someone can show me a alternate solution I am going to push the check HID before CID patch to -mm in the next day or two. 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
