From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git] make /proc/acpi/wakeup more useful Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:03:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20070418030343.GB12756@kroah.com> References: <200704031741.42273.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070413155949.GA9157@ucw.cz> <200704171253.02748.david-b@pacbell.net> <200704171457.50416.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46284 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030848AbXDRDFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:05:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704171457.50416.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: Pavel Machek , Zhang Rui , Andrew Morton , lenb@kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" , Linux Kernel list 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