On 07/09/15 22:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 06:06:48 PM Marc Zyngier wrote: >> IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel >> requires before being able to use the device driver model. >> >> ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one >> we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and >> clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up >> and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly >> hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer. >> >> In order to allow some basic probing based on the ACPI tables, >> introduce "struct acpi_probe_entry" which contains just enough >> data and callbacks to match a table, an optional subtable, and >> call a probe function. A driver can, at build time, register itself >> and expect being called if the right entry exists in the ACPI >> table. >> >> A acpi_probe_device_init() is provided, taking an ACPI table >> identifier, and iterating over the registered entries. > > What about things that are provided by the ACPI namespace (eg. via _MAT) rather > than in static tables? By the time we get to process non-static tables, the whole probing infrastructure (including the ACPI interpreter) should be up and running. I'm not seeing this stuff as a replacement for more dynamic things - quite the opposite. It is only to be used for early bring-up. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- 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
