From: Thomas Renninger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Rene Herman <email@example.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Li, Shaohua" <email@example.com>,
Alan Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:34:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 01:33 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 01-12-07 00:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2007 04:37:26 pm Rene Herman wrote:
> >> On 30-11-07 18:04, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> >>> If I have not overseen something, it should be rather obvious that those
> >>> can all be declared __init...
> >>> ---------------
> >>> Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init
> >>> There are three kind of parse functions provided by PNP acpi/bios:
> >>> - get current resources
> >>> - set resources
> >>> - get possible resources
> >>> The first two may be needed later at runtime.
> >>> The possible resource settings should never change dynamically.
> >>> And even if this would make any sense (I doubt it), the current implementation
> >>> only parses possible resource settings at early init time:
> >>> -> declare all the option parsing __init
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Yes. Obviousness aside,
> >> (0) pnpacpi_add_device is only caller of
> >> ...
> > I agree this is probably safe in the current implementation.
> > However, I think the current implementation is just broken because
> > we can't really handle hotplug of ACPI devices. Specifically, I think
> > the first TBD in acpi_bus_check_device() should be fleshed out so it
> > does something like pnpacpi_add_device().
> > So my dissenting opinion is that this patch would just get reverted
> > soon anyway when somebody finishes implementing ACPI hotplug, and
> > therefore it's not worth doing.
> The PnPBIOS bits should still be fine at least I guess. And, it would seem
> this is rather essential to Thomas' efforts of making this stuff dynamic in
> the first place anyway.
No it is not. It is just another optimization I saw while going through
these code parts...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-02 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-30 17:04 [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init Thomas Renninger
2007-11-30 23:37 ` Rene Herman
2007-11-30 23:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2007-12-01 0:33 ` Rene Herman
2007-12-02 13:34 ` Thomas Renninger [this message]
2007-12-02 13:50 ` Rene Herman
2007-12-02 13:32 ` Thomas Renninger
2007-12-03 11:53 ` Thomas Renninger
2007-12-03 15:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).