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-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html