On Thursday, February 07, 2013 07:32:22 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Make the ACPI container driver use struct acpi_scan_handler for > > representing the object used to initialize ACPI containers and remove > > the ACPI driver structure used previously and the data structures > > created by it, since in fact they were not used for any purpose. > > > > This simplifies the code and reduces the kernel's memory footprint by > > avoiding the registration of a struct device_driver object with the > > driver core and creation of its sysfs directory which is unnecessary. > > > > In addition to that, make the namespace walk callback used for > > installing the notify handlers for ACPI containers more > > straightforward. > > > > This change includes fixes from Toshi Kani. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > Yes, container support should be built-in by nature. > > Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! > What is the next? I've sent a patch for memory hotplug already, but I'm a little concerned about it, because after my patch users wouldn't have an option to turn memory eject off (now they can remove the module, which is suboptimal, but at least it kind kind of works). So I think there needs to be some sysfs-based switch for that or something. > dock? It is on the radar, but it also is kind of a can of worms. :-) > Hope someone with access of dock that have pcie devices could help > sorting it out... Someone having a system like that told me he was willing to test patches, but I got distracted by something. 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
