On Sunday, February 06, 2011 04:34:43 pm Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Still, IMO, there is a design issue in the entire ACPI subsystem, because the > idea of "ACPI device" really is not well defined, so to speak. Sometimes > they are just "device interfaces" that can be used to ask the firmware for > something (like in the case of the "ACPI devices" associated with PCI devices) > and sometimes they are "real devices" with real drivers. The video device > apparently wants to be both at the same time, which is even more confusing. :-) I'm not familiar with video devices, but I agree, this situation does feel broken. Is it the case that there's a PCI device as well as an ACPI namespace Device for the same piece of hardware? If so, I assume the reason for the ACPI Device is to have a "standard" interface to a platform knob like backlight control. In that case, it seems like we should rely on PCI for enumeration and driver binding, have some sort of hook the PCI driver could use to twiddle that knob (using the ACPI methods), and make the ACPI Device ineligible for driver binding. In other words, it sounds like part of the problem is that we have two drivers binding to what's really a single piece of hardware. Bjorn -- 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
