From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 06/13] ACPI: introduce enumerable_id flag Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:03:21 +0100 Message-ID: <5323A6D9.5070005@intel.com> References: <1394727413-3587-1-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> <1394727413-3587-7-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:63161 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754558AbaCOBDZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:03:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1394727413-3587-7-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhang Rui Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com On 3/13/2014 5:16 PM, Zhang Rui wrote: > Only certain kind of ACPI device objects can be enumerated via ACPI. > These ACPI device objects include > 1. ACPI device objects that have _HID control method. > 2. some ACPI device objects that have Linux specified HID strings. > > In order to distinguish those device objects from the others, a new flag > enumerable_id and a new function acpi_add_eid() are introduced in this patch. I don't really like the name of the new flag. What about calling it platform_id (it is supposed to indicate that the core should create a platform device for it)? > Currently, only devices with _HID method have this flag set. > And in the future, if a device that has Linux specified HID strings > wants to be enumerated to platform bus, acpi_add_eid() should be used And what about calling the new function acpi_add_platform_id() accordingly? > instead of acpi_add_id() when adding its Linux specified HID string. And I don't quite understand the last paragraph as a whole. Is it supposed to mean "if you want platform devices to be created for device objects without _HID, use acpi_add_platform_id() when adding artificial Linux-specific ID strings to them"? > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui > --- > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 8 +++++++- > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > index 399257e..768f81d 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -1679,6 +1679,12 @@ static void acpi_add_id(struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, const char *dev_id) > pnp->type.hardware_id = 1; > } > > +static void acpi_add_eid(struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, const char *dev_id) > +{ > + acpi_add_id(pnp, dev_id); > + pnp->type.enumerable_id = 1; > +} > + > /* > * Old IBM workstations have a DSDT bug wherein the SMBus object > * lacks the SMBUS01 HID and the methods do not have the necessary "_" > @@ -1729,7 +1735,7 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > } > > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_HID) > - acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > + acpi_add_eid(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_CID) { > cid_list = &info->compatible_id_list; > for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h > index 8c5e235..688ca44 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h > @@ -217,7 +217,8 @@ struct acpi_hardware_id { > struct acpi_pnp_type { > u32 hardware_id:1; > u32 bus_address:1; > - u32 reserved:30; > + u32 enumerable_id:1; > + u32 reserved:29; > }; > > struct acpi_device_pnp {