On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:45:53AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 10/12/2013 07:18 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > >If we have two ACPI enumerated devices, they have following modalias: > > > > i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD:00 > > acpi:INTABCD > > > > i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD:01 > > acpi:INTABCD > > > >Likelihood that some random I2C driver has INTABCD:00 or INTABCD:01 ids in > >their list is minimal. However, when you turn it to this: > > > > > > i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD > > acpi:INTABCD > > > > i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD > > acpi:INTABCD > > > >It might be possible that we get a match that isn't supposed to happen. > >Well, OK it is pretty remote but anyway :-) > Well, name conflicts could occur of course but still I don't think > we should generate illegal or wrong modaliases. I'm not an udev > expert but I suppose trying to load nonexisting drivers > (i2c_INTABCD:xy) could slow booting a little and perhaps pollute > needlessly error log compared to if it can see that driver is > already loaded or tries to load the same driver again. > > I don't think name conflicts can pose too big risk as they are > trivial to fix in sources and can be queued to stable too. OK, you got me convinced :-) No further objections from me. -- 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
