On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely: > 1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be needed > while SCSI devices are not created yet. So each time ACPI handle is > needed, instead of retrieving the handle by ACPI_HANDLE macro, > a namespace scan is performed to find the handle for the corresponding > ATA device. This is inefficient, and also expose a restriction on > calling path not holding any lock. > 2 The binding to SCSI device tree makes code complex, while at the same > time doesn't bring us any benefit. All ACPI handlings are still done > in ATA module, not in SCSI. > > Rework the ATA ACPI binding code to bind ACPI handle to ATA transport > devices(ATA port and ATA device). The binding needs to be done only once, > since the ATA transport devices do not go away with hotplug. And due to > this, the flush_work call in hotplug handler for ATA bay is no longer > needed.
I like it but am wondering why we weren't doing this before. Was the acpi support added before we made ata objects proper devices? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
