From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] ACPI: make ACPI use driver model Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:28:30 -0700 Message-ID: <200612070928.30460.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <1165496170.11485.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:46842 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032387AbWLGQ2h (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:28:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1165496170.11485.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhang Rui Cc: lenb@kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" On Thursday 07 December 2006 05:56, Zhang Rui wrote: > 1. ACPI driver model. > ACPI driver are made to follow Linux driver model. > The main work is to convert the registration interfaces,so that > ACPI devices are registered with the global device tree. > Note the new .uevent method mark ACPI drivers by PNPID > instead of by name. Udev script needs to look for "HWID = " > or "COMPTID = " to load the right ACPI driver. I generally like the direction this is headed. But I wonder whether it's right to expose the distinction between PNP devices and ACPI devices to userspace. Assume you had a box where you can run either PNPBIOS firmware or ACPI firmware. Since the box has exactly the same hardware in either case, it would be nice if everything in /sys and udev stayed the same. Is it possible to extend the PNP model to include ACPI, rather than introducing a new ACPI model alongside the PNP model? Bjorn