From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20051208141811.GB21715@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20051208030242.GA19923@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208091542.GA9538@infradead.org> <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208133308.GA13267@infradead.org> <20051208133945.GA21633@srcf.ucam.org> <1134050498.17102.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1134050498.17102.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Christoph Hellwig , randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:01:38PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Something like "pci_to_acpi(struct pcidev *)" belongs in arch specific > code even if we do add a generic "void * pm_device" type pointer to > struct pci_dev or struct device for such a purpose. pci_to_acpi is already implemented in the PCI layer (see drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c), with struct device.firmware_data being where the acpi_handle ends up. I guess there's no problem in moving my code out to scsi-acpi.c and adding an arch_initcall for it. Would that be more acceptable? The only problem then is working out a clean way of setting up the notification structure. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org