On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:10:33 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, November 18, 2012 05:55:39 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:24:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, maybe there is one. Perhaps we can make acpi_platform_notify() > > > call acpi_bind_one() upfront and only if that fails, do the whole > > > type->find_device() dance? Of course, acpi_bind_one() would need to > > > be modified slightly too, like in the patch below. > > > > > > If we did that, acpi_i2c_add_device() would only need to assign acpi_handle > > > as appropriate before calling i2c_new_device() (and analogously for SPI). > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > This is certainly better than the thing we use currently. It makes adding > > I2C and SPI support much shorter and simpler. If others don't object I > > would suggest that we switch to use this method. > > OK, thanks. > > The first of the following two patches is a slightly modified version of the > one that you commented. Patch [2/2] implements the idea for platform devices > and since it modifies struct platform_device_info, I'm adding a CC to Greg. > > The patches are on top of current linux-pm.git/linux-next. > > It looks like we may be able to use this approach for PCI too, in which case > the whole .find_device() stuff won't be necessary any more. Following is the series with the Greg's feedback taken into account. Patch [1/3] is the same as before with the bug found by Mika fixed, [2/3] is an additional patch adding struct acpi_dev_node to compile out unused stuff if CONFIG_ACPI is not set and [3/3] is the previous [2/2] rebased on top of it. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
