On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> [+cc Greg, Peter, Tony since they acked the original patch [1]] >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Mika Westerberg >>>> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:32:25PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>>>> Struct device_driver is a generic structure, so it seems strange to >>>>>> have to include non-generic things like of_device_id and now >>>>>> acpi_match_table there. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but in a sense the DT and ACPI are "generic". So that they are used to >>>>> describe the configuration of a machine. >>>> >>>> What I meant by "generic" was "useful across all architectures." The >>>> new acpi_match_table and acpi_handle fields [1] are not generic in >>>> that sense because they're present on all architectures but used only >>>> on x86 and ia64. The existing of_match_table and of_node are >>>> similarly unused on many architectures. This doesn't seem like a >>>> scalable strategy to me. Are we going to add a pnpbios_node for x86 >>>> PNPBIOS machines without ACPI, a pdc_hpa for parisc machines with PDC, >>>> etc.? >>>> >>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1677221/ >>> >>> Ultimately yes, I think that is what we want to do, >> >> Just to be clear, you think we *should* add things like pnpbios_node, >> pdc_hpa, etc., to struct device, one field for every scheme of telling >> the OS about non-enumerable devices, where only one of the N fields is >> used on any given machine? That seems surprising to me, but maybe I >> just need to be educated :) > > Ah, I see what you're asking. > > In the short term, yes but only because we don't have any other > alternative. What I'd really rather have is a safe way to attach datum > (ie. acpi_device or device_node) to a struct device and get it back > later in a type safe way. Yep, *that* makes perfect sense to me. Something along these lines, maybe: #define dev_is_acpi(d) ((d)->bus == &acpi_bus_type) #define dev_acpi_handle(d) (dev_is_acpi(d) ? (acpi_handle) d->datum : NULL) -- 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
