On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:10:02 Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply...
>
> On Thursday 28 August 2008 04:03:58 Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Making dock driver supports bay and battery hotplug. They are all
> > regarded as dock, and unified handled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> ...
>
> > +
> > +static int is_battery(acpi_handle handle)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device_info *info;
> > + struct acpi_buffer buffer = {ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL};
> > + int ret = 1;
> > +
> > + if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_object_info(handle, &buffer)))
> > + return 0;
> > + info = buffer.pointer;
> > + if (!(info->valid & ACPI_VALID_HID))
> > + ret = 0;
> > + else
> > + ret = !strcmp("PNP0C0A", info->hardware_id.value);
> > +
> > + kfree(buffer.pointer);
>
> Better get the device and then use:
> const struct acpi_device_id battery_device_ids[] = {
> {"PNP0C0A", 0},
> {"", 0},
> };
> acpi_match_device_ids(struct acpi_device *device, battery_device_ids);
> No need to allocate memory. This also matches batteries where the ID might
> be hidden in the CID list.
> ...
Above is still valid.
Below are simply questions to better understand what the patches are for.
Thanks to Holger, I get a bit clearer picture now.
While these patches are needed to get things going for now, would it be
possible for the future to add a directory "dependent_devices" into a dock's
sysfs entry and fill it with links to devices for which userspace has to care
for?
> Something general:
> I do not like the idea of this approach.
> Battery and ATA device do get an eject notification?
> Why can't they handle things themselves?
> What is the gain to make battery and ata "dock" capable devices?
> What if a PCI(e) device or whatever other device is also connected to the
> docking station. Do we want to add all devices attached to a dock station
> statically?
>
> Would it make sense to add (if notifications are sent to these even this
> should not be needed):
> .eject
> .dock
> functions. The dock driver can then go down the tree and call all
> children's eject functions.
>
> I wonder how this can be solved in a more generic way.
>
> Also this patchset mixes up sever fixes and dock design changes patches.
> It would be great if the fixes can just go into test, not sure about the
> design change...
Some of the patches looked like it would be worth for .27, but it's too late
now anyway and the problem I hoped it could fix (kacpid utilizes 100% of CPU
after suspend, due to _STA -> notify loop) is not solved by these according
to Holger.
Thomas
--
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
