-----Original Message-----Why? We will convert the drivers for most of those devices from ACPI bus to platform bus sooner or later.
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:23 AM
To: Zhang, Rui
Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx; Wysocki, Rafael J;
dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] ACPI: use platform bus as the default bus
for _HID enumeration
Importance: High
On Monday, March 03, 2014 10:11:48 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 00:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:device already has a scan handler attached.
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:11:12 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
Because of the growing demand for enumerating ACPI devices to
platform bus, this patch changes the code to enumerate ACPI
devices with _HID/_CID to platform bus by default, unless the
{Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 28 ----------------------------
drivers/acpi/scan.c | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c index dbfe49e..33376a9 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
@@ -22,24 +22,6 @@
ACPI_MODULE_NAME("platform");
-/*
- * The following ACPI IDs are known to be suitable for
representing as
- * platform devices.
- */
-static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_platform_device_ids[] =
device node-
- { "PNP0D40" },
- { "ACPI0003" },
- { "VPC2004" },
- { "BCM4752" },
-
- /* Intel Smart Sound Technology */
- { "INT33C8" },
- { "80860F28" },
-
- { }
-};
-
/**
* acpi_create_platform_device - Create platform device for ACPI
acpi_device *adev,* @adev: ACPI device node to create a platform device for.
@@ -125,13 +107,3 @@ int acpi_create_platform_device(struct
acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct acpi_device *device)kfree(resources);
return 1;
}
-
-static struct acpi_scan_handler platform_handler = {
- .ids = acpi_platform_device_ids,
- .attach = acpi_create_platform_device,
-};
-
-void __init acpi_platform_init(void) -{
- acpi_scan_add_handler(&platform_handler);
-}
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c index
5967338..61af32e 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -2022,14 +2022,15 @@ static int
forhandler = acpi_scan_match_handler(hwid->id, &devid);I'm a bit concerned that this check will create platform devices
if (handler) {
ret = handler->attach(device, devid);
- if (ret > 0) {
+ if (ret > 0)
device->handler = handler;
- break;
- } else if (ret < 0) {
- break;
- }
+ if (ret)
+ goto end;
}
}
+end:
+ if (!list_empty(&device->pnp.ids) && !device->handler)
Well, I did that too.too many ACPI device objects.agreed. there are some devices created unexpected by this patch, e.g.
on my test machine, I can see
/sys/bus/platform/devices/LNXSYSTM:00 (ACPI system bus/root node)
/sys/bus/platform/devices/PNP0000:00 (PIC)
/sys/bus/platform/devices/PNP0100:00 (system timer?)
Shouldn't we require that _HID or at least _CID is present forI do not think so.
that?
only devices that invoke acpi_add_ids() may have pnp.ids but no
_HID/_CID, right?
I did a check in the code, those devices include:
ACPI root nodeNo, we don't want any of them. So pretty much as I said, only if
ACPI video
ACPI bay
ACPI dock
IBM SMBus
ACPI Power resource
ACPI processor
ACPI thermal
ACPI fixed power/sleep button
IMO, only the ACPI root node, ACPI power resource, possibly ACPI
processor are the ones that we do not want to see in platform bus.
_HID/_CID is present, please?
We need to see them in platform bus...