From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752327AbaEZM7G (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2014 08:59:06 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:16434 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751984AbaEZM7E (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2014 08:59:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,913,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="436937989" Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 15:58:59 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Zhang Rui , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 08/11] ACPI: always register memory hotplug scan handler even if CONFIG_X86_INTEL_LPSS is cleared Message-ID: <20140526125859.GG1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1400781753-2682-1-git-send-email-rui.zhang@intel.com> <4177604.8JWRhYqtaS@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140526115235.GD1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> <2390763.sjfZLLMhWb@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2390763.sjfZLLMhWb@vostro.rjw.lan> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, May 26, 2014 02:52:35 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 01:53:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > I'm wondering whether it is worth the ugliness to get platform bus > > > > enumeration the default? > > > > > > > > Since you already have the PNP whitelist, can't we just use that for PNP > > > > and keep these files as they are? In other words, don't make any kind of > > > > physical device by default and let the scan handlers to decide. > > > > > > Well, that's tempting, but then we'd get one more whitelist pretty much without > > > any benefit, because we'd be still going to have the list in acpi_platform.c. > > > > > > The purpose of the whole exercise is not to prevent PNP devices from being > > > created by default (which admittedly is a nice side effect), but to get rid > > > of the white list in acpi_platform.c - and in particular, to avoid the > > > necessity to add every ACPI-enumerated platform device to that list in the > > > future. > > > > Yes, I understand but that list currently has only 5 entries. Are > > we expecting to have much more entries there in the future? > > Yes, we are. Pretty much anything that's DT-enumerable today may be > ACPI-enumerable in the future. But you should know that. ;-) OK. Then I guess having platform enumeration the default makes sense and we just need to live with the ugly #ifdefs in acpi_lpss.c.