On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 21:19 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Sunday 31 May 2009 04:31:51 yakui_zhao wrote: > > > + /* > > + * On some boxes several processors use the same processor bus id. > > + * But they are located in different scope. For example: > > + * \_SB.SCK0.CPU0 > > + * \_SB.SCK1.CPU0 > > + * Rename the processor device bus id. And the new bus id will be > > + * generated as the following format: > > + * CPU+CPU ID. > > + */ > > + sprintf(acpi_device_bid(device), "CPU%X", pr->id); > Hm, there were several attempts to get rid of acpi_device_bid and > friends. > Especially here, sprintfing into something function like looks really > wrong. > Len, do you agree that not introducing new ones and at some point of > time replacing: > acpi_device_bid(device) > with > device->pnp.bus_id > is the way to go? The acpi_device_bid is not a function. It is equal to the device->pnp.bus_id for the ACPI device. #define acpi_device_bid(d) ((d)->pnp.bus_id) Thanks. > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Processor [%d:%d]\n", pr->id, > > pr->acpi_id)); > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- 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
