On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 16:18 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > A example patch would be something like the following, I didn't seperate > these ACPI calls in sr.c as this is just a concept proof, if this is the > right thing to do, I will separate them into another file sr-acpi.c and > make empty stubs for them in sr.h for systems do not have ACPI configured. Apart from the needed separation to compile in the !ACPI case > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sr.c b/drivers/scsi/sr.c > index ef72682..94d17f1 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/sr.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sr.c > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ > #include <linux/mutex.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > +#include <linux/acpi.h> > #include <asm/uaccess.h> > > #include <scsi/scsi.h> > @@ -57,6 +58,8 @@ > #include <scsi/scsi_host.h> > #include <scsi/scsi_ioctl.h> /* For the door lock/unlock commands */ > > +#include <acpi/acpi_bus.h> > + > #include "scsi_logging.h" > #include "sr.h" > > @@ -212,8 +220,8 @@ static int sr_resume(struct device *dev) > scsi_test_unit_ready(cd->device, SR_TIMEOUT, MAX_RETRIES, &sshdr); > > /* If user wakes up the ODD, eject the tray */ > - if (cd->device->need_eject) { > - cd->device->need_eject = 0; > + if (cd->need_eject) { > + cd->need_eject = false; > /* But only for tray type ODD when door is not locked */ > if (!(cd->cdi.mask & CDC_CLOSE_TRAY) && !cd->door_locked) > sr_tray_move(&cd->cdi, 1); > @@ -704,6 +711,58 @@ static void sr_release(struct cdrom_device_info *cdi) > > } > > +static void sr_acpi_wake_dev(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context) > +{ > + struct device *dev = context; > + struct scsi_cd *cd = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > + > + if (event == ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_WAKE && pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) { > + cd->need_eject = true; > + pm_runtime_resume(dev); > + } > +} > + > +static void sr_acpi_add_pm_notifier(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; > + acpi_handle handle; > + acpi_status status; > + > + handle = dev->archdata.acpi_handle; This is a complete no-no. archdata is defined to be specific to the architecture it's supposed to be opaque to non-arch code. You'll find that only x86 and ia64 defines an acpi_handle there. This will instantly fail to compile on non intel. If you need the handle, it should be obtained via some accessor like dev_to_acpi_handle() which will allow this to continue to function when, say, arm acquires ACPI. I've got to say, this looks like a fault in ACPI itself. If the handles are 1:1 with struct device, then why not have all the functions taking handles take the device instead and leave the embedded handle safely in the architecture specific code? James -- 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