> > > > > By using acpi_install_notify_handler(), each driver needs to walk > > > > > through the entire ACPI namespace to find its associated ACPI devices > > > > > and call it to register one by one. I think this is more work for > > > > > non-ACPI drivers than defining acpi_driver. > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure what you mean. The drivers in question already know > > > > what the relevant ACPI device nodes are (because they need them anyway > > > > for other purposes), so they don't need to look for them specifically and > > > > acpi_install_notify_handler() doesn't do any namespace walking. So what > > > > you said above simply doesn't make sense from this viewpoint. > > > > > > Yes, if drivers already know the relevant ACPI devices, then walking the > > > ACPI namespace is not necessary. I was referring the case like > > > processor_driver.c, acpi_memhotplug.c, and container.c in my statement. > > > > BTW, when an ACPI device is marked as non-present, which is the case > > before hot-add, we do not create an acpi_device object and therefore do > > not bind it with a driver. This is why these drivers walk the ACPI > > namespace and install their notify handlers regardless of device status. > > So maybe we should create struct acpi_device objects in that case too? I think it has some challenge as well. We bind an ACPI driver with device_register(), which calls device_add()-> kobject_add(). So, all non-present ACPI device objects will show up in sysfs, unless we can change the core. This will change user interface. There can be quite many non-present devices in ACPI namespace depending on FW implementation. Thanks, -Toshi -- 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
