On Di 06. Mai - 19:48:28, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:36:12PM +0200, Holger Macht wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > > > ( Please TO or CC hmacht@xxxxxxx ! ) > > Then stop setting Mail-Followup-To: :) > > > > Hm. I'm not absolutely certain about this. Do we get a bus check > > > notification after the dock has been removed? If so, I think it ought to > > > be handled the same way as the internal bay (ie, signal userspace and > > > let it clean up and destroy the device - if it fails to do so, then > > > destroy the device when the dock is actually removed, by catching the > > > bus/device check, calling the _STA method on the bay and destroying the > > > device if it's present) > > > > libata is notified through the dock driver when a dock event occurs, just > > before the dock driver undocks, giving no time to userspace to clean > > up. libata doesn't receive an additional acpi bay event. > > That's the current situation, I'm not sure it's ideal. But I'll skip What exactly do you think is not ideal? > worrying about that until I've actually got some hardware to work out > how to do it properly :) Maybe this is what you're thinking of?: http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=121009411900390&w=2 > > > >> 2. Bay event: libata signals a BAY_EVENT through uevent, userspace writes > > >> 1 to /sys/.../device/delete > > > > > In the case of an eject request, yes. In the case of a bus or device > > > check, we should call _STA and then delete/hotplug the device as > > > appropriate. > > > > Yes. > > Excellent. I /think/ the patch I sent earlier basically does this - > you'll want to register a separate callback for the dock event in that > case, though. I'll take a look the following days, thanks. Regards, Holger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
