On Saturday, August 03, 2013 06:32:02 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 02:47 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, August 02, 2013 04:38:38 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 00:33 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Modify acpi_bind_one() so that it doesn't fail if the device > > > > represented by its first argument has already been bound to the > > > > given ACPI handle (second argument), because that is not a good > > > > enough reason for returning an error code. > > > > > > While it seems reasonable to allow such case, I do not think we will hit > > > this case under the normal scenarios. So, I do not think we need to > > > make this change now unless it actually solves Yasuaki's issue (which I > > > am guessing not). > > > > In theory it should be possible to call acpi_bind_one() twice in a row > > for the same dev and the same handle without failure, that simply is > > logical. The patch may not fix any problems visible now, but returning an > > error code in such a case is simply incorrect. > > We changed acpi_bus_device_attach() to not call the handler or driver > again if it is already bound. So, I was under impression that we > prevent from attaching a same device twice. But I may be missing > something... acpi_bind_one() may be called in code paths that don't start from acpi_bus_device_attach(), like acpi_platform_notify(), where the result depends on how .find_device() is implemented by the the given bus type, for example. 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
