On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:47:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2012 09:07:06 AM Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 09, 2012 09:34:42 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > > >> > > >> Can we expand the BUS_ADD_* concept to other devices instead of just > > >> acpi_device? > > >> > > >> aka we should let struct device has this add_type field. > > > > > > Having done that in ACPI to cover our use case here, we can try to move it > > > into struct device if there are use cases beyond ACPI that can't be covered > > > by using deferred driver probing. > > > > pci device for hotplug have same problem. need to delay driver attach > > for them too. > > OK, I'll take a look. Any pointers to speed that up? > > > also BUS_ADD_MATCH and BUS_ADD_START are duplicated. > > Not at the moment, they do different things as code goes. > > > old add are separated to adding all devices to tree and then matching > > work to load the drivers. > > > > so _START is not needed anymore, only user.start in pci_root driver > > should be removed. > > code in .start could be moved .add without problem. > > Yes, I'm going to do that as the next step. I didn't want this particular > patchset to grow too big. I'll post another one on top of it if people > don't have problems with this one. By the way, can you please remind me where you wanted to put the pci_bus_add_devices() and why? 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
