On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 11:18:20PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, February 02, 2013 09:15:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, February 02, 2013 03:58:01 PM Greg KH wrote: > [...] > > > > > I know it's more complicated with these types of devices, and I think we > > > are getting closer to the correct solution, I just don't want to ever > > > see duplicate devices in the driver model for the same physical device. > > > > Do you mean two things based on struct device for the same hardware > > component? > > That's been happening already pretty much forever for every PCI device known > > to the ACPI layer, for PNP and many others. However, those ACPI things are > > (or > > rather should be, but we're going to clean that up) only for convenience > > (to be > > able to see the namespace structure and related things in sysfs). So the > > stuff > > under /sys/devices/LNXSYSTM\:00/ is not "real". In my view it shouldn't > > even > > be under /sys/devices/ (/sys/firmware/acpi/ seems to be a better place for > > it), > > but that may be difficult to change without breaking user space (maybe we > > can > > just symlink it from /sys/devices/ or something). And the ACPI bus type > > shouldn't even exist in my opinion. > > Well, well. > > In fact, the appended patch moves the whole ACPI device nodes tree under > /sys/firmware/acpi/ and I'm not seeing any negative consequences of that on my > test box (events work and so on). User space is quite new on it, though, and > the patch is hackish.
Try booting a RHEL 5 image on this type of kernel, or some old Fedora releases, they were sensitive to changes in sysfs. greg k-h _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
