From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 09/11] ACPI: introduce flag .is_master_device Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:59:13 +0200 Message-ID: <537C9511.90206@intel.com> References: <1400136256-2218-1-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> <1400136256-2218-10-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> <20140521085207.GR1651@lahna.fi.intel.com> <2394524.GkgpdWbBbP@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140521110444.GU1651@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:18892 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751018AbaEUL73 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2014 07:59:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140521110444.GU1651@lahna.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Mika Westerberg , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com On 5/21/2014 1:04 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:10:33PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:52:07 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:44:14PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: >>>> For some ACPI device objects, they represent master devices, >>>> and their children devices are enumerated by bus controller drivers >>>> for the buses they are on. >>>> >>>> In this case, we do not want to enumerate their children devices to >>>> platform bus explicitly in acpi scan code. >>>> >>>> Thus a new flag .is_master_device is introduced in this patch. >>>> >>>> For devices with this flag set, we will not do default enumeration >>>> for their children. >>> Is there any particular reason we would like to enumerate everything >>> below the first device by default? >> Yes, there is. Device objects without _ADR under the PCI host bridge. > OK. > >> Or we can skip the children under every *platform* device created by this by >> default and mark the ones where we want the children to be enumerated as >> platform devices too in a special way if needed. >> >> I guess we could try that (that was the Rui's original idea IIRC). > That sounds better to me. > > I wonder if we can do this analogous to of_platform_bus_probe() and > friends? Yes, we should actually. Rafael