From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Don't create a platform_device for IOAPIC/IOxAPIC Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20170323105029.GJ8329@suse.de> References: <1490204005-2733-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <1490204005-2733-4-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <2232546.0OJbVJtxLm@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170322225853.GH8329@suse.de> <20170322235805.GH7266@8bytes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Joerg Roedel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:06:44AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > The main problem is that representing anything hot-removable as a > platform device is inherently fragile, as the platform bus type has no > idea whatever about things that may physically go away and platform > drivers don't expect that devices may vanish from under them in > general and so on. Unregistration alone doesn't help much with that, > so IMO at least for now it's better to avoid using platform_device for > hot-removable stuff. Okay, thanks for the explanation. So patch 2 could be dropped, should I resend without that patch or do you want to pick them up from this post? Joerg