On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:09:42AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> On 3/24/15 15:20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 04:43:46 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:23:47AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>>On 3/9/15 10:20, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >>>>>[....]
> >>>>>diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> >>>>>index e530533..9a42522 100644
> >>>>>--- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> >>>>>+++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> >>>>>@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct css_device_id {
> >>>>> struct acpi_device_id {
> >>>>> __u8 id[ACPI_ID_LEN];
> >>>>> kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
> >>>>>+ __u32 cls;
> >>>>
> >>>>It would be nice if we could change ordering here but I understand that
> >>>>it breaks quite many drivers. Perhaps we should consider creating
> >>>>ACPI_DEVICE() macro and convert existing drivers to that at some point.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, a roughly grep in the drivers directory showing about 112 files at the
> >>>moment. If you think this is the right approach going forward, we can work
> >>>on cleaning this up on a separate patch series. Please let me know what you
> >>>think.
> >>
> >>I think having ACPI_DEVICE() macro would be pretty useful and it avoids
> >>things like this if we need to add new fields in the future. Rafael has
> >>the last word, though :-)
> >
> >I agree.
>
> Okay, how should I organize this big change? Can we do this as a separate
> patch series?
Separate patch series is fine.
--
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
