Re: [PATCH] PNPACPI: do ACPI binding directly

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 22:03 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 07, 2014 10:27:26 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 14:53 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 08:54:49 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > > From 7daac7fc7cd7b605ccd84f10fc206cedf6170e89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:14:07 +0800
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] PNPACPI: do ACPI binding directly
> > > > 
> > > > PNPACPI uses acpi_bus_type to do ACPI binding for the PNPACPI devices.
> > > > 
> > > > This is overkill because PNPACPI code already knows which ACPI
> > > > device object to bind during PNPACPI device enumeration.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch removes acpi_pnp_bus and does the binding by invoking
> > > > acpi_bind_one() directly after device enumerated.
> > > > 
> > > > This also fixes a bug in the previous code that some PNPACPI devices failed
> > > > to be bound because
> > > > 1. the ACPI device _HID is not pnpid, e.g. "MSFT0001", but its _CID is,
> > > >    e.g. "PNP0303", thus ACPI _CID is used as the pnp device device id.
> > > > 2. device is bound only if the pnp device id matches the ACPI device _HID.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Prigent Christophe <christophe.prigent@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Does this fix a regression?
> > 
> > Hmmm, no, the problem exists in all previous kernel versions IMO.
> 
> OK, so it is applicable to -stable too?  Or would it need to be backported?
> 
I don't think we need it in stable kernel, because this is not a
critical issue.
I've seen only two devices with this problem, and all of them don't have
ACPI _PSx/_PRx method. This means that, although pnpacpi_resume() fails
because of this bug, nothing really bad happens because pnpacpi_resume()
is actually a no-op for such devices.

thanks,
rui 
> > >   If so, do we need it in 3.16?
> > > 
> > Not necessarily, but as this is a bug fix, so I think it is reasonable
> > to be shipped in 3.16, right?
> 
> Basically, yes.
> 
> Rafael
> 


--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux