From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suravee Suthikulpanit Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 1/2] ACPI / scan: Add support for ACPI _CLS device matching Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:11:01 -0500 Message-ID: <5512D005.70801@amd.com> References: <1425622302-15193-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <55117373.3020808@amd.com> <20150324144346.GO1878@lahna.fi.intel.com> <1602323.I0oL7Cv9OO@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1602323.I0oL7Cv9OO@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg Cc: lv.zheng@intel.com, hpa@linux.intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, tj@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, al.stone@linaro.org, graeme.gregory@linaro.org, leo.duran@amd.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 3/24/15 15:20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 04:43:46 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:23:47AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: >>> On 3/9/15 10:20, Mika Westerberg wrote: >>>>> [....] >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h >>>>> index e530533..9a42522 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h >>>>> @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct css_device_id { >>>>> struct acpi_device_id { >>>>> __u8 id[ACPI_ID_LEN]; >>>>> kernel_ulong_t driver_data; >>>>> + __u32 cls; >>>> >>>> It would be nice if we could change ordering here but I understand that >>>> it breaks quite many drivers. Perhaps we should consider creating >>>> ACPI_DEVICE() macro and convert existing drivers to that at some point. >>> >>> Yes, a roughly grep in the drivers directory showing about 112 files at the >>> moment. If you think this is the right approach going forward, we can work >>> on cleaning this up on a separate patch series. Please let me know what you >>> think. >> >> I think having ACPI_DEVICE() macro would be pretty useful and it avoids >> things like this if we need to add new fields in the future. Rafael has >> the last word, though :-) > > I agree. Okay, how should I organize this big change? Can we do this as a separate patch series? Thanks, Suravee