From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:59:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20070413155949.GA9157@ucw.cz> References: <200704031741.42273.david-b@pacbell.net> <200704060843.30723.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070407050131.GB25511@kroah.com> <200704071308.07571.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:1073 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752826AbXDOJhM (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:37:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704071308.07571.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Greg KH , Zhang Rui , Andrew Morton , lenb@kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" , Linux Kernel list Hi! > > Are you _sure_ you have a 1-to-1 relationship here? No multiple devices > > pointing to the same acpi node? Or the other way around? If so, you > > are going to have to change the name to be something more unique. > > I've wondered that too. The short answer: APCI only supports 1-1 > here. It will emit warnings if it tries to bind more than one ACPI ... > 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. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html