James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>> In retrospect, perhaps having a separate directory under /kernel would
>> be better, and then vendors could deploy their own acpi modules without
>> having to touch the acpi_drv binary.
>>
>
> If that's where we go, then I'd rather see an /etc registry, as we do
> with other forms of hardware/module ID and aliasing.
>
>
>> There's a possibly different approach as well -- you could have acpi_drv
>> be a nexus, and create child nodes with the node name of the form
>> "acpi,TOS1900" or somesuch. That might actually be the *most* elegant.
>>
>
> Yes ... and would make the use of a new subdirectory much less
> interesting.
>
> Given that there's only one of these now, there may not be many, and
> that someone could reasonably design something better here later, it's
> not clear to me that pushing a more flexible scheme is necessary.
> (But I certainly agree with you that this would be cleaner.)
>
I agree. So, I'll give the current proposal a +1, and gently recommend
that the nexus approach either be used now, the next time we have to add
new vendor specific modules. Thoughts?
-- Garrett
