lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / scan: Simplify container driver
From
Date
On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 01:55 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 03:32:18 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 00:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > The only useful thing that the ACPI container driver does is to
> > > install system notify handlers for all container and module device
> > > objects it finds in the namespace. The driver structure,
> > > acpi_container_driver, and the data structures created by its
> > > .add() callback are in fact not used by the driver, so remove
> > > them entirely.
> > >
> > > It also makes a little sense to build that driver as a module,
> > > so make it non-modular and add its initialization to the
> > > namespace scanning code.
> > >
> > > In addition to that, make the namespace walk callback used for
> > > installing the notify handlers more straightforward.
> >
> > I think the container driver needs to be registered as an ACPI scan
> > driver so that sysfs eject will continue to work for container devices,
> > such as ACPI0004:XX/eject. Since the container driver does not support
> > ACPI eject notification (and we have been discussing how system device
> > hot-plug should work), this sysfs eject is the only way to eject a
> > container device at this point. I will send an update patchset that
> > applies on top of this patch.
> >
> > With the update in my patchset:
> > Reviewed-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
>
> Thanks, but I'd like to (1) apply your patch from
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2108851/ first and then (2) fold your [2/2]
> into my [2/2], if you don't mind, and apply that next.

That's fine by me.

> Moreover, I'm wondering if the #ifndef FORCE_EJECT thing in acpi_eject_store()
> actually makes sense after the recent changes to acpi_bus_trim(), because that
> can't fail now, so the eject will always be carried out. So perhaps we can
> simply remove the acpi_device->driver check from there entirely in the first
> place?
>
> If we really want to be able to prevent ejects from happening in some cases,
> we need to implement something along the lines discussed with Greg.

acpi_bus_trim() cannot fail, but sysfs eject can fail. So, I think it
makes sense to do some validation before calling acpi_bus_trim(). If we
are to implement the no_eject flag thing, that check needs to be made
before calling acpi_bus_trim().

Thanks,
-Toshi






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-07 02:41    [W:0.102 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site