On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:55:13PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > I posted this one already and you had some concerns about it: > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg09510.html > > IMO, this one should still be added to -mm, because: > - The patch itself is correct, it is the function that is called > that must make sure to return the corresponding pci device No, I don't think that follows. The semantics of acpi_get_physical_device are currently to return a physical device only if the node directly corresponds to one. What's the correct physical device for the video extension? It may be a PCI device, but it's just as easy to argue that it corresponds to some piece of platform-specific hardware. We could change the semantics and ensure that all leaf nodes of an ACPI node representing a PCI device share the same physical device. That would avoid the bug your patch currently introduces of ignoring functional devices, but would immediately cause the second video device to reappear on Thinkpads. Incidentally, have you tried this on a Thinkpad with a discrete graphics controller? I /suspect/ (but can't verify) that you'll end up discarding the working video extension. In summary, I don't think this approach can be made to work. You're throwing out legitimate and working devices. Instead, we should export information about the addresses of the video extensions and let whoever's handling the graphics (which is userspace right now) handle it. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - 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
