From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932481AbaICMgN (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:36:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]:57158 "EHLO mail-ig0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932236AbaICMgM (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:36:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:36:06 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Prarit Bhargava Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Tyser , Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, lpc, Allow only one load of lpc_ich Message-ID: <20140903123606.GG28985@lee--X1> References: <1409695097-5831-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <20140903074315.GB28985@lee--X1> <5406E9B0.101@redhat.com> <20140903113535.GE28985@lee--X1> <540701B5.3020409@redhat.com> <20140903121941.GF28985@lee--X1> <54070842.2000700@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <54070842.2000700@redhat.com> 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 > > If only one is useful, why have the second one in the first place? > > That's just it -- it shouldn't have been exposed (again, according to Intel). I didn't mean at an OS level, I mean what's the point of having two on the h/w. I guess only Intel may know. > > If the devices are present and we can see them, why not have 2? Some > > users might find a use for them. > > No one will. Okay, I guess I have my hackers head on here. Perhaps this guy shouldn't probe. It just seems weird to have a device that we know about and have register access to, but we're specifying "no playing". > > In the WARNING you submitted only sysfs was having a hard time. > > Perhaps the real fix would be to allow the Watchdog and GPIO driver to > > change their name when registering, so they can each have their own > > sysfs entries. > > /me scratches head. > > How does that help having multiple devices which shouldn't be exposed? The fact that they shouldn't be exposed should be neither here nor there. I'm thinking that they are exposed, so why suffocate them. Besides, what happens when there is a use-case for two of these devices? How are these guys being registered anyway? Does PCI detect and register them automatically? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog