From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhang Rui Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] ACPI: use unique number as bus_id of ACPI device in sysfs Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:35:21 +0800 Message-ID: <1164609321.5326.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <11643454612902-git-send-email-len.brown@intel.com> <1164361231.5768.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1164517810.5768.126.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200611270110.27543.len.brown@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:12425 "EHLO mga01.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757082AbWK0Gbr (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:31:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200611270110.27543.len.brown@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: "linux-acpi@vger" , Li Shaohua On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 01:10 -0500, Len Brown wrote: > > Another way to fix this naming problem. > > Many devices in ACPI namespace is meaningless. Only the devices with a > > PNPID are physical devices and should be exported to userspace. > > So we can only register these devices and use "PNPID:instance no" as its > > name. > > Add instance_no in struct acpi_device. Every time we fail to register an > > ACPI device and get an error of "-EEXIST", loop acpi_device_list to get > > the right instance_no and register again. > > Yes, PNP-id's have definitions, and when we have the luxury of having > devices with PNP-id's, we should use those, along with an instance number > to handle the case of multiple devices of the PNPid. > > Indeed, the question is if we should go so far as to translate the PNPid > into English, or simply use the PNPid string. > > eg "PNP0C0C" vs "button". > > I vote for the PNPid, since it requires less maintenance:-) > Yes. For now, we can use "pnpid:instance_no" for devices with pnpid. For devices without PNPid, we recognise them as "NO_PNPID:instance_no". Is this OK? > thanks, > -Len