2013/5/24 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > 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, Rafel and Lan,TianYu > > 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
