On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 10:15 +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > On Tue 10. Jun - 09:34:36, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 02:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:23:08PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > > > > case ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST: > > > > ata_ehi_push_desc(ehi, "ACPI event"); > > > > - > > > > - if (!is_dock_event) > > > > - break; > > > > - > > > > - /* undock event - immediate unplug */ > > > > ata_acpi_detach_device(ap, dev); > > > > > > Ok, just to check that I've understood the other patches - this will > > > only be called if the device has actually been removed, and not if you > > > merely get an EJECT_REQUEST, right? An EJECT_REQUEST from a bay device > > > should always just signal userspace, and never actually cause the device > > > to be deleted. I don't really like the way that you're remapping event > > > types inside the dock driver - it'd be cleaner if the per-driver > > > handlers received ADD_DEVICE or REMOVE_DEVICE or something. > > It's not forcely ejected. This patch adds a check in dock.c, if eject > > request is for an ata bay, we just signal userspace. Latter if a > > device/bus check invoked, dock driver will check status, and doing force > > eject. At this time, ata's EJECT_REQUEST handler will be called. > > Remapping event is to make per-driver handlers easy. complex is all in > > dock driver. > > I still don't get a uevent signalled to userspace for a bay device in my > dock station when pressing the lever on the bay device. I think I'll get > to debug this by the end of the week or the weekend if you like... can you send me the acpidump output, so I can have a quick check first? Thanks, Shaohua -- 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
