On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:27, keith mannthey wrote: > 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? I think that your SSDT is valid. I can't point to a specific reference in the spec, but I think the "try _HID first, then try _CID" strategy is clearly the intent. Otherwise, there would be no reason to separate _HID from _CID. > 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. I support this, although I do understand that it will make it more difficult to integrate ACPI into the driver model because the driver model currently only does one pass to check whether a driver can claim a device. Bjorn - 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
