On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 01:10 -0500, Len Brown wrote: > > Another way to fix this naming problem. > > Many devices in ACPI namespace is meaningless. Only the devices with a > > PNPID are physical devices and should be exported to userspace. > > So we can only register these devices and use "PNPID:instance no" as its > > name. > > Add instance_no in struct acpi_device. Every time we fail to register an > > ACPI device and get an error of "-EEXIST", loop acpi_device_list to get > > the right instance_no and register again. > > Yes, PNP-id's have definitions, and when we have the luxury of having > devices with PNP-id's, we should use those, along with an instance number > to handle the case of multiple devices of the PNPid. > > Indeed, the question is if we should go so far as to translate the PNPid > into English, or simply use the PNPid string. > > eg "PNP0C0C" vs "button". > > I vote for the PNPid, since it requires less maintenance:-) > Yes. For now, we can use "pnpid:instance_no" for devices with pnpid. For devices without PNPid, we recognise them as "NO_PNPID:instance_no". Is this OK? > thanks, > -Len - 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
