On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 00:02:49 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:50:04PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > >On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:51:21 +0800 > >Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > >> Three trivial cleanup for pc-dimm. > >> > >> Patch [1] remove the check on class->hotpluggable since pc-dimm is always > >> hotpluggable. > >> Patch [2] remove nvdimm_realize > >> Patch [2] remove pcdimm realize-callback > >even though this series doesn't break anything, I disagree with it > >conceptually as it makes device less abstracted and make it more > >dependent on how existing machine code uses it. > >I'd drop whole series. > > > > Is Patch [1] also make device more dependent on existing implementation? yes, it's implementation detail that PCDIMM&Co are hotpluggable now. > For example, when we look at the counterpart of acpi_memory_plug_cb(): > > acpi_pcihp_device_plug_cb > > which handle the pci device hotplug. We don't check the hotpluggable > property for pci devices. > > To me, this is a general rule for PCDIMM, they are hotpluggable. yes, PCDIMMs are hotpluggable but apci device (piix4pm/ich9/...) handling hotplug should ignore any non-hotpluggable one. If you remove check and then later someone else would add non-hotpluggable memory device or make PC-DIMMs or its variant of non-hotpluggable one, acpi device handling will break. Hence I'd prefer to keep the check. > For Patch[2][3], I agree with you. >
