On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:05:28 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:44:21PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So, we want to have acpi_handle (or acpi_node) in addition to of_node in struct
> > device (to be used in the analogous way plus for the execution of AML methods),
> > but we don't want all users of device.h to have to include ACPI headers
> > where the acpi_handle data type is defined. For this reason, we're using
> > (void *) as its data type now, which let's say I'm not really happy with.
> >
> > I've been thinking about that for quite a while, though, and I'm not really
> > sure what to do about that. Perhaps we could define something like
> >
> > struct acpi_dev_node {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > void *handle;
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > in device.h and use that as "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" in struct device.
> > Then, we could add the following macro
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > #define ACPI_HANDLE(dev) ((dev)->acpi_node.handle)
> > #else
> > #define ACPI_HANDLE(dev) (NULL)
> > #endif
> >
> > and redefine DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(dev) as ((acpi_handle)ACPI_HANDLE(dev)).
> >
> > Then, the $subject patch would add "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" to
> > struct platform_device_info and use ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead of accessing
> > the struct device's field directly.
>
> In addition to struct platform_device_info, we are also going to add
> similar to struct i2c_board_info. There already is of_node pointer so I was
> thinking to add acpi_handle like you did for platform_device.
Yeah, that's kind of something that comes to mind immediately. :-)
> Type of that pointer of course needs to be figured out :)
Yup.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
