On 07/25/2013 10:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? Hi Tejun,
This has been quiet for some time, may I know your opinion on this? Thanks, Aaron -- 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
