>> As for your suggestion of using acpi-dev as the arg to take both >> pci-dev and acpi-dev.. Would that mean sending a pure pci device >> (not the corner case you mentioned) through the acpi-dev argument >> as well? Not sure if that would appropriate. > > Ah, looking up my description is unclear. I meant two optional parameters > pci-dev or acpi-dev - which one was supplied would indicate the type > of handle to be used.
Yes, that makes sense. But for now only have pci-dev until we have any acpi-dev related code added? IIRC, this is what we discussed earlier.
