Re: 2.6.25 semantic change in bay handling?

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:36:12PM +0200, Holger Macht wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> ( Please TO or CC hmacht@suse.de ! )

Then stop setting Mail-Followup-To: :)

> > Hm. I'm not absolutely certain about this. Do we get a bus check 
> > notification after the dock has been removed? If so, I think it ought to 
> > be handled the same way as the internal bay (ie, signal userspace and 
> > let it clean up and destroy the device - if it fails to do so, then 
> > destroy the device when the dock is actually removed, by catching the 
> > bus/device check, calling the _STA method on the bay and destroying the 
> > device if it's present)
> 
> libata is notified through the dock driver when a dock event occurs, just
> before the dock driver undocks, giving no time to userspace to clean
> up. libata doesn't receive an additional acpi bay event.

That's the current situation, I'm not sure it's ideal. But I'll skip 
worrying about that until I've actually got some hardware to work out 
how to do it properly :)

> >>  2. Bay event: libata signals a BAY_EVENT through uevent, userspace writes
> >>     	       1 to /sys/.../device/delete
> 
> > In the case of an eject request, yes. In the case of a bus or device 
> > check, we should call _STA and then delete/hotplug the device as 
> > appropriate.
> 
> Yes.

Excellent. I /think/ the patch I sent earlier basically does this - 
you'll want to register a separate callback for the dock event in that 
case, though.
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org