Re: Suggestion for improving the handling of GPE enabling.

[Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>]

On Čt 10-03-05 00:10:47, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 17:21, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > > 4. ACPI devices are in many different physical buses. If we just define
> > > an ACPI bus, we possibly can't show the bus hierarchy.
> > 
> > Maybe ACPI device should be "under" real hardware one?
> 
> I suspect that the current sysfs device tree hierarchy is largely
> fiction and that Linux would be better served by taking advantage of the
> hierarchy embodied in the DSDT.

Funny, I'd say that DSDT hierarchy is fiction and ... :-).

> The "ACPI devices" such as power, sleep, lid as well as the battery are
> represented at the root level in the DSDT.

It probably does not matter where power/sleep/lid are represented, but
things like ide-disk below ide-controller below pci bus make sense to
me (and we need that hierarchy for suspend/resume anyway). For devices
like lid... yeh, there's not much hierarchy there, just select some
place.
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id\x14396&op=click