On Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:56:32 PM Lan Tianyu wrote: > 2013/5/23 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 03:42:04 PM Jeff Wu wrote: > >> 2013/5/22 Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > 2013/5/22 Jeff Wu <zlinuxkernel@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> >> 2013/5/21 Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> >>>> From: Jeff Wu <zlinuxkernel@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >>> Will this affect other devices? Since the device maybe disabled during > >> >>> do binding with ACPI. > >> >>> After some operations, the device would be enabled. > >> >> At our platforms, DEV1 use for win8,DEV2 use for win7,DEV1 use for Linux. > >> >> If these devices are disabled when do init, they will always be > >> >> disabled ,so, work fine. > >> >> > >> >> At some of the platforms, the devices may be disabled during do the > >> >> first binding ,if their status are changed,do they not do re-binding ? > >> > Currently, the glue binding operation takes place when the device is > >> > created. In my mind, there is no re-binding operation after the device being > >> > created, Unless the device being removed and created again. > >> Thank you very much. > >> So, as your suggestion, it is a better solution to add a new function > >> for the same _ADR devices, > > > > I don't really think this is a good idea, because then it won't be clear when > > to use which version. > Ok. How about make them as one function?. > New function will return all the children's handle with same _ADR and the number > of children. The caller should check the number. If the number is 1 and then > do eveything that now have done. If the number is larger than 1. It should > select one according their strategy. Why do you think that the callers may have different strategies? They are subsystems, not drivers. > There is another such issue. In this case, the first child should be selected. > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg39739.html No, that's about something different. Thanks, Rafael > > Your patch kind of makes sense (although we don't need to initialize both > > local variables to 0), but the Tianyu's concern is valid in principle either. > > > > Perhaps it would be better to make do_acpi_find_child() return the disabled > > device if its the only one matching or the first enabled matching device > > otherwise? > > > > 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
