From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752238AbaEZMX5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2014 08:23:57 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:51488 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751664AbaEZMX4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 May 2014 08:23:56 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mika Westerberg 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 Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 14:40:58 +0200 Message-ID: <2390763.sjfZLLMhWb@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.15.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20140526115235.GD1765@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. ;-) > For LPSS devices we can't get rid of the list since we need to pass > ->driver_data based on the _HID anyway. Obviously. Rafael