On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:27, keith mannthey wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:27 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:25 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > >> If we decide that "try HID first, then try CID" is the right thing,
> > >> I think we should figure out how to make that work. Maybe that
> > >> means extending the driver model somehow.
> > > Don't think it's easy, especially no other bus needs it I guess.
> >
> > I agree it's probably not easy, but I think having the right
> > semantics is more important than fitting cleanly into the
> > driver model. But I know that without code, I'm just venting
> > hot air, not contributing to a solution.
> >
> > How's the ACPI driver model integration going, anyway? I seem
> > to recall some patches a while back, but I don't think they're
> > in the tree yet.
> >
> > > Do we really need the memory hotplug device returns pnp0c01/pnp0c02?
> > > What's the purpose?
> >
> > I don't know. But I think Keith already determined that a BIOS change
> > is not likely. I hate to ask for BIOS changes like this because it
> > feels like asking them to avoid broken things in Linux.
>
> Ok my motherboard patch was dropped from -mm so I am broken again but
> others are fixed. Is the answer that we do nothing about this issues?
>
> I am pretty sure my SSDT table is valid if someone *cannot* point out
> in the spec where my device is malformed by having both HID and CID I
> will not be able even start the request to change the BIOS (it would be
> a waste of my time). Sure having the CID of the memory device may be
> overkill but is it wrong?
I think that your SSDT is valid. I can't point to a specific
reference in the spec, but I think the "try _HID first, then try
_CID" strategy is clearly the intent. Otherwise, there would be
no reason to separate _HID from _CID.
> Unless someone can show me a alternate solution I am going to push the
> check HID before CID patch to -mm in the next day or two.
I support this, although I do understand that it will make it more
difficult to integrate ACPI into the driver model because the driver
model currently only does one pass to check whether a driver can claim
a device.
Bjorn
-
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]
