Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful

Greg KH
2007-04-18T03:05:52Z

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:57:49PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2007 12:53 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007 8:59 am, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > > Assuming they all adopt that same "parallel tree" model, that seems
> > > > like a good idea. The tools will likely need to understand how ACPI
> > > > and OF differ, but there's no point in reserving more names than we
> > > > really need. Though it may be that "parallel trees" should go away.
> > >
> > > If mapping is indeed 1-to-1 in acpi... it would be nice to just merge
> > > the trees.
> >
> > Could you elaborate a bit ... what do you mean by "merge"?
> >
> > One way to merge the trees would be to relocate
> >
> > /sys/devices/pci* --> ... this *HAS* a PNP node
> > /sys/devices/pnp*/X --> /sys/devices/acpi_system*/.../X
> >
> > Not having the PCI root be its PNPACPI node seems more buglike
> > to me than anything else. And for other nodes...
>
> Looks like the i8042 serial nodes will be bizarre too:
>
> /sys/devices/pnp0/00:09
> ... touchpad's PNP node
> /sys/devices/acpi_system:00/device:00/PNP0A03:00/device:15/PNP0F13:00
> ... its ACPI node
> /sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio4
> ... its serio node
>
> That seems like two nodes too many, but without me trying to twist
> my mind around i8042 issues, I can't quite speculate why struct
> serio "is-a" device rather than "has-a" device (the PNP node) as
> would be the case with a more normal driver structure.
>
> But the existence of that device_add() in serio.c sure explains why
> the PNP node doesn't get associated with the input class device one
> would expect from knowing that 00:09 is the touchpad.

Ick, how can we fix this up?

> And hmm, just this morning I saw email from Greg re-affirming that
> drivers should not device_add(). Converting such legacy drivers is
> simple though, right? :)

Heh, yeah right, they can remain platform drivers :)

thanks,

greg k-h