From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Prakash, Prashanth" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: move ACPI_SYSTEM_HID to acpi_drivers.h Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:53:31 -0600 Message-ID: <56EAE10B.8070404@codeaurora.org> References: <1458157022-18633-1-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> <1458157022-18633-2-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:49761 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031260AbcCQQxf (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:53:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , harba@codeaurora.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" Hi Rafael, On 3/16/2016 7:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > #include "internal.h" > @@ -22,7 +24,6 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("scan"); > extern struct acpi_device *acpi_root; > > #define ACPI_BUS_CLASS "system_bus" > -#define ACPI_BUS_HID "LNXSYBUS" > No. > > This is not a valid device ID and should never be used as such. Section 5.6.6 in ACPI 6.1 is defining the notification value for the graceful shutdown request as a ACPI device specific value(0x81) and it is targeting the system bus(\_SB), so we took the current approach of creating a sybus driver to handle the notifications targeting the system bus. Let me go through the code again and see if we can avoid using the ACPI_BUS_HID. In the meantime, if you have any specific thoughts on how this should be handled, please let us know. Thanks, Prashanth