On Tuesday 17 April 2007 12:53 pm, David Brownell wrote: > On Friday 13 April 2007 8:59 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > ... > > > 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... Looks like the i8042 serial nodes will be bizarre too: /sys/devices/pnp0/00:09 ... touchpad's PNP node /sys/devices/acpi_system:00/device:00/PNP0A03:00/device:15/PNP0F13:00 ... its ACPI node /sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio4 ... its serio node That seems like two nodes too many, but without me trying to twist my mind around i8042 issues, I can't quite speculate why struct serio "is-a" device rather than "has-a" device (the PNP node) as would be the case with a more normal driver structure. But the existence of that device_add() in serio.c sure explains why the PNP node doesn't get associated with the input class device one would expect from knowing that 00:09 is the touchpad. And hmm, just this morning I saw email from Greg re-affirming that drivers should not device_add(). Converting such legacy drivers is simple though, right? :) - 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
