On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
> to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
> ACPI drivers to bind to device
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
> to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
> ACPI drivers to bind to device objects with existing "physical"
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
> to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
> ACPI drivers to bind to device
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 01:19:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
> to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
> ACPI drivers to bind to device objects with existing "physical"
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
ACPI drivers to bind to device objects with existing "physical"
device companions, but it doesn't allow
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
The current code in acpi_bus_attach() is inconsistent with respect
to device objects with ACPI drivers bound to them, as it allows
ACPI drivers to bind to device objects with existing "physical"
device companions, but it doesn't allow "physical" device objects
to be
6 matches
Mail list logo