On Sunday, June 23, 2013 09:34:09 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > 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> Thanks! > BTW, thank you very much for the whole acpi scan rework. Well, no problem, it was necessary for a number of reasons. And honestly I think more along those lines is still needed. :-) For example, the discussion here shows how fragile the design of acpiphp is. Take hotplug_dock_devices() for instance. It shouldn't even need to use those "handlers", because ideally acpi_bus_trim() should automatically trigger the removal of "physical" device objects depending on the stuff being trimmed. And analogously for acpi_bus_scan(). The "trim" part should be possible to implement even now, because struct acpi_device contains a "remove" callback pointer (that was added for power resources IIRC), although perhaps it'll need to be called from acpi_bus_device_detach(). The "scan" part should be doable too if we add an "add child" callback to struct acpi_device, so that acpi_bus_device_attach() can use it to handle devices that don't have scan handlers or ACPI drivers (like PCI devices). Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
