On Monday, February 07, 2011, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 02:32:35PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > 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. > > Part of the problem is that ACPI video devices aren't inherently PCI > devices. To me, this really isn't about video devices. The problem is that objects of type struct acpi_device are treated _differently_ depending on the context. In the meantime I've reviewed the code a bit and noticed that there's a parent pointer in struct acpi_device, which basically duplicates the device tree dependency, so it looks like the embedded dev in struct acpi_device is really redundant. -- 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
