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

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

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.

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?  :)

- Dave