From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Regression in module wmi since 2.6.32 (bisected to commit 1caab3c) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:27:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20100106152724.GA15664@srcf.ucam.org> References: <4B352513.90302@lwfinger.net> <200912252056.08436.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> <4B353035.4050208@lwfinger.net> <200912252158.31127.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> <4B353818.1020308@lwfinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B353818.1020308@lwfinger.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Larry Finger Cc: Carlos Corbacho , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Linux ACPI List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hm. I think this is an artifact of the way we're treating WMI right now. The assumption is that the interfaces are defined in namespace by their GUID, whereas in fact they're defined by their ACPI namespace. Can we avoid this by just setting the parent to the ACPI device's corresponding Linux device (if present) and including the WMI device's name in the dev_set_name call? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org