On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, June 23, 2013 04:04:52 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: ... >> > Ah, I overlooked the fact that each dock station is on its own dependent_list >> > and can also be on another dock station's dependent_list. I'm not sure if that >> > makes sense, but let's not break the backwards compatibility here. >> >> wonder if dock_release_hotplug with second dock_station and dd will >> have problem. >> >> as first one dock_station/dd, could have hp_context release already, >> then second one could all release(context) again.... >> >> so looks like dock_release_hotplug should go over dock_station/dd list >> to clear hp_context in other dock_station/... if they are the same? > > I'm not sure what you mean. They are different dependent_device objects > and each of them has its own context pointer, although they both will point to > the same thing. > > Both "init" and "release" will be called for each of them individually which > for for acpiphp (which is the only user of that ATM) actually means "get" and > "put", so it should be OK. yes, then hp_context can never be the same, just the acpi handle is the same. Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> BTW, thank you very much for the whole acpi scan rework. Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
