Hi! > > Are you _sure_ you have a 1-to-1 relationship here? No multiple devices > > pointing to the same acpi node? Or the other way around? If so, you > > are going to have to change the name to be something more unique. > > I've wondered that too. The short answer: APCI only supports 1-1 > here. It will emit warnings if it tries to bind more than one ACPI ... > Assuming they all adopt that same "parallel tree" model, that seems > like a good idea. The tools will likely need to understand how ACPI > and OF differ, but there's no point in reserving more names than we > really need. Though it may be that "parallel trees" should go away. If mapping is indeed 1-to-1 in acpi... it would be nice to just merge the trees. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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
