>From one of the ACPI guys:
> Get hid
> Look for driver
> If you find a match, load it
> If no match, get CID
> Look for driver
> If you find a match, load it
> If you did not find an hid or cid match, punt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-acpi-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of keith mannthey
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:14 AM
> To: Bjorn Helgaas
> Cc: Len Brown; Moore, Robert; Li, Shaohua; Mattia Dongili; Andrew
Morton;
> lkml; linux acpi; KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> Subject: Re: one more ACPI Error (utglobal-0125): Unknown exception
code:
> 0xFFFFFFEA [Re: 2.6.18-rc4-mm3]
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:20 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Friday 01 September 2006 17:01, keith mannthey wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 21:15 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > The current ACPI driver binding algorithm in
acpi_bus_find_driver()
> > > > looks at each driver, checking whether it can match either the
_HID
> > > > or the _CID of a device. Since we try the motherboard driver
first,
> > > > it matches the memory device _CID.
> > >
> > > Ok I reverted the motherboard driver patch and cooked up the
following
> > > patch that works for my issue.
> > >
> > > It creates the idea that acpi_match_ids has a type of request to
> check
> > > against for _HID, _CID or both. See acpi_bus_match_req. I then
fix up
> > > all the needed callers to change the API to acpi_match_ids and
> > > acpi_bus_match and have callers can say what they want to match
> > > against.
> > >
> > > Then in acpi_bus_find_driver I have it do 2 passes to search for
> _HID
> > > first then the _CID.
> > >
> > > Does this look like it is in the right ballpark or should we be
doing
> > > something else? Built/tested against 2.6.18-rc4-mm3.
> >
> > Conceptually I like this much better than mucking with the
motherboard
> > driver. I'm not sure the important people have signed off on this
> > strategy of binding with _HID first, then _CID (hi, Len :-)) Maybe
> > there are ramifications that we need to consider. But I think it
> > is a better match for "what people expect should happen."
>
> ACPI folks can we get some response to this? This problem has been
> reported a few times against the -mm tree and I would like to get the
> proper fix (whatever it is) upstream sometime soon.
>
> Bjorn thanks for the help and for pointing the error reports in the
> right direction.
>
> Thanks,
> Keith
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi"
in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
