Re: [Resend] [PATCH]: ACPI: Rename ACPI processor device bus ID

[Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>]

On Wednesday 03 June 2009 04:34:06 yakui_zhao wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 21:19 +0800, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 May 2009 04:31:51 yakui_zhao wrote:
> > 
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * On some boxes several processors use the same processor bus id.
> > > +	 * But they are located in different scope. For example:
> > > +	 * \_SB.SCK0.CPU0
> > > +	 * \_SB.SCK1.CPU0
> > > +	 * Rename the processor device bus id. And the new bus id will be
> > > +	 * generated as the following format:
> > > +	 * CPU+CPU ID.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	sprintf(acpi_device_bid(device), "CPU%X", pr->id);
> > Hm, there were several attempts to get rid of acpi_device_bid and 
> > friends.
> > Especially here, sprintfing into something function like looks really 
> > wrong.
> > Len, do you agree that not introducing new ones and at some point of
> > time replacing:
> > acpi_device_bid(device)
> > with
> > device->pnp.bus_id
> > is the way to go?
> The acpi_device_bid is not a function. It is equal to the
> device->pnp.bus_id for the ACPI device.
> #define acpi_device_bid(d)      ((d)->pnp.bus_id)
this #define should vanish sooner or later.
Several people suggested to get rid of these already.
Why don't you use:
sprintf(device->pnp.bus_id, "CPU%X", pr->id);
Unfortunately these constructs are rather common in drivers/acpi,
thus I ask whether these should be avoided or not.

   Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html