From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755451Ab3LDCqV (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:46:21 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:32520 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752764Ab3LDCqS (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:46:18 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,821,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="446425294" Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:44:52 -0800 From: "David E. Box" To: Matthew Garrett Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] ACPI/platform: Add ACPI ID for Intel MBI device Message-ID: <20131204024452.GB8282@linux.intel.com> References: <1385100357-5459-1-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <1386115178-7559-1-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <1386115178-7559-3-git-send-email-david.e.box@linux.intel.com> <20131204013001.GA25037@srcf.ucam.org> <20131204021703.GA8282@linux.intel.com> <20131204022130.GA26084@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131204022130.GA26084@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:21:30AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:17:03PM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > This is per the requirement in Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt: > > > > "Currently the kernel is not able to automatically determine from which ACPI > > device it should make the corresponding platform device so we need to add > > the ACPI device explicitly to acpi_platform_device_ids list defined in > > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c" > > Well sure, but why do you need to be a platform device at all? This > functionality was intended for cases where we already have a driver for > the part that enumerated it via some other mechanism. If the driver's > only intended for ACPI systems then why not just be an ACPI device? > It was my understanding that with ACPI 5.0 it was becoming more common to use ACPI ID's exclusively for device enumeration. I originally wrote this as an acpi_bus driver but Rafeal advised me that the model is being phased out and suggeted the platform model instead. > -- > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org