On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:01:29AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Also, some companies already provide userspace tools to get all of this > information about the different slots in a system and what is where, > from userspace, no kernel changes are needed. So, why add all this > extra complexity to the kernel if it is not needed? Second that motion.... I don't get it. What are the goals of this patch, really? Just to get a "slot geographical location" from the kernel? I'm balancing the intellectual appeal of having a kernel struct for representing physical objects, against the headache of reading (debugging, modifying) code that has yet another struct doing yet another thing. So far, the dread of future headaches is winning. On pseries systems, I deal with something called the "partitionable endpoint", which I think probably usually corresponds to physical slots, but I don't really know. The hardware guys pitch changeups all the time. Some of these are soldered onto the planar, so the are not physical slots. But they are, um, "hotpluggable" in that you can dynamically add & remove them from the system (even though you cannot physically unplug the ones that are soldered on -- you can only assign them to other hardware partitions (think hardware VM or hardware Xen)). So, naively, the physical slot concept doesn't really map to what I have to work with; it just adds one more appendix to it all, one more thing to get confused about. To be clear: above remarks are for the PowerPC boxes. I have no clue about how things work on the IBM Intel-based boxes. And Greg's original "get IBM to agree" remark is about the Intel-based boxes. --linas - 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
