On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, May 26, 2014 02:52:35 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 01:53:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I'm wondering whether it is worth the ugliness to get platform bus > > > > enumeration the default? > > > > > > > > Since you already have the PNP whitelist, can't we just use that for PNP > > > > and keep these files as they are? In other words, don't make any kind of > > > > physical device by default and let the scan handlers to decide. > > > > > > Well, that's tempting, but then we'd get one more whitelist pretty much without > > > any benefit, because we'd be still going to have the list in acpi_platform.c. > > > > > > The purpose of the whole exercise is not to prevent PNP devices from being > > > created by default (which admittedly is a nice side effect), but to get rid > > > of the white list in acpi_platform.c - and in particular, to avoid the > > > necessity to add every ACPI-enumerated platform device to that list in the > > > future. > > > > Yes, I understand but that list currently has only 5 entries. Are > > we expecting to have much more entries there in the future? > > Yes, we are. Pretty much anything that's DT-enumerable today may be > ACPI-enumerable in the future. But you should know that. ;-) OK. Then I guess having platform enumeration the default makes sense and we just need to live with the ugly #ifdefs in acpi_lpss.c. -- 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
