On Friday 13 April 2007 8:59 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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 (Clarifying: the ACPI *code* works that way. I have no idea whether ACPI itself makes such restrictions. And I suspect that ACPI practice will in some cases couple multiple ACPI devices to one PCI device...) > ... > > 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. Could you elaborate a bit ... what do you mean by "merge"? One way to merge the trees would be to relocate /sys/devices/pci* --> ... this *HAS* a PNP node /sys/devices/pnp*/X --> /sys/devices/acpi_system*/.../X Not having the PCI root be its PNPACPI node seems more buglike to me than anything else. And for other nodes, it seems like maybe there should be a "firmware" subdirectory holding the ACPI state (hid, path, etc) ... creating a minor chicken/egg problem that ACPI would need to sort out. Likely one can just assume PCI and PNP busses exist, so creating nodes on those buses based on ACPI tables would not be a problem. And for ACPI-internal devices, like SLPB and power buttons, the ACPI bus would suffice. But are there other busses? - Dave - 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
