From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ACPI: kill acpi_pci_root_start
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:54:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1535647.4ENXPBYvrO@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo48XLzLvziACEi+0nWuRXurHCLnw+iwgqu8-BRutjNtWw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 13:44:42 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:00:10PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> This is a fundamental difference: at boot-time, all the ACPI devices below the
> >> host bridge already exist before the pci_root.c driver claims the bridge,
> >> while at hot-add time, pci_root.c claims the bridge *before* those ACPI
> >> devices exist.
> >>
> >> I think this is wrong. The hot-plug case (where the driver is already
> >> loaded and binds to the device as soon as it's discovered, before the
> >> ACPI hierarchy below it is enumerated) seems like the obviously correct
> >> order. I think we should change the boot-time order to match that, i.e.,
> >> we should register pci_root.c *before* enumerating ACPI devices.
> >
> > in booting path, all device get probed at first, and then register driver...
> > do you want to register all pci driver before probing pci devices?
>
> I don't think we should have dependencies either way. It shouldn't
> matter whether we enumerate devices first or we register the driver
> first. That's why I think the current PCI/ACPI binding is broken --
> it assumes that we fully enumerate ACPI before the driver is
> registered.
>
> To answer your specific question, yes, I do think drivers that are
> statically built in probably should be registered before devices are
> enumerated. That way, the boot-time case is more similar to the
> hot-add case.
>
> Obviously, for drivers that can be modules, the reverse must work as
> well (enumerate devices, then load and register the driver). And then
> the other order (register driver, then enumerate device) must also
> work so future hot-adds of the same device type work.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-04 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAE9FiQWgvVqnTTeYFvxf1GxLcEEeRyN-uSKPdg3o69oCpm43sQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-10-03 23:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-03 23:00 ` [PATCH 1/4] ACPI: add drivers_autoprobe in struct acpi_device Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 13:03 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-04 15:15 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-09 16:38 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-03 23:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] ACPI: use device drivers_autoprobe to delay loading acpi drivers Yinghai Lu
2012-10-03 23:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] PCI, ACPI: Remove not used acpi_pci_root_start() Yinghai Lu
2012-10-03 23:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] ACPI: remove acpi_op_start workaround Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 12:57 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-04 17:47 ` [PATCH 0/4] ACPI: kill acpi_pci_root_start Bjorn Helgaas
2012-10-04 18:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 19:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-10-04 19:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2012-10-04 20:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 20:47 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-10-04 19:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-04 21:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-04 21:31 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 21:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-04 22:01 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 22:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-04 22:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 23:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-10-05 23:10 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-08 20:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1535647.4ENXPBYvrO@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®