On Monday, December 10, 2012 06:26:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > >> > >> OK, thanks for the pointers. I actually see more differences between our > >> patchsets. For one example, you seem to have left the parent->ops.bind() > >> stuff in acpi_add_single_object() which calls it even drivers_autoprobe is > >> set. > > > > Sorry, that should have been "which calls it even when drivers_autoprobe is > > not set". I need to be more careful. > > > > oh, Jiang Liu had one patch to remove that workaround. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git;a=commitdiff;h=b40dba80c2b8395570d8357e6b3f417c27c84504 > > ACPI/pci-bind: remove bind/unbind callbacks from acpi_device_ops
OK, so I'm looking at the current code, which for me is the master branch of the linux-pm.git tree (the linux-next branch is the same ATM), and I'm not seeing acpi_pci_unbind_cb() in there. So surely this patch applies to something different, right? In which case I wonder what reason there is for me to look at it at all? Besides, I think it may be done differently and in a more straightforward way. Namely, on top of my current patchset, it is guaranteed that not only struct pci_dev objects will always be registered after the companion struct acpi_device ones, but also they always will be *created* after those companion objects have been registered. So in principle we can populate a new struct pci_dev's ACPI handle as soon as in pci_scan_device(), next to pci_set_of_node(). Then, we can do something like acpi_pci_bind(), although without the whole acpi_get_pci_dev() nonsense, in pci_setup_device(), in which case we won't need to do it anywhere else. As an added benefit, acpi_platform_notify() would then see a populated ACPI handle in that struct pci_dev when finally registering the PCI device, so it wouldn't need to do the whole acpi_find_bridge_device() and type->find_device() dance. > Maybe you can review that patches in my for-pci-next2... > those are ACPI related anyway. I can, provided that (1) they are based on top of my tree or v3.7 and (2) they don't conflict with patches we're currently discussing. > those patches have been there for a while, and Bjorn did not have time > to digest them. Well, Bjorn's review bandwidth is limited and we need to take that into account. > or you prefer I resend updated version as huge whole patchset? No, no huge patchsets, please. Let's take one step at a time, so that everyone involved/interested can understand what's going on, OK? My review capacity also is not unlimited, mind you. I can't promise I'll have the time to review more than a few patches a day (where "a few" is rather less than "several"). Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
