On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 04:19:55 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 03:15:12 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 22:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> i think we should put jiang four patches before Rafael's patches.
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-yinghai.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-pci-jiang-hotplug
>
> Actually, I have something more radical than
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 03:15:12 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 22:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 03:15:12 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 22:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> :
> > > We need to decide which module is re
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 22:57 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
:
> > We need to decide which module is responsible for calling .bind(). I
> > think it should be the ACPI scan
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:59:46 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > So, I would propose the following changes.
> >
> > - Move the acpi_hot_add_bind() call back to the original plac
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2012 05:08:17 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 23:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> > So, I would propose the following changes.
>> >
>> > - Move
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 10:59 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > So, I would propose the following changes.
> >
> > - Move the acpi_hot_add_bind() call back to the original place after
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> So, I would propose the following changes.
>
> - Move the acpi_hot_add_bind() call back to the original place after
> the device_attach() call.
> - Rename the name of acpi_hot_add
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, December 17, 2012 05:08:17 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 23:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > struct acpi_device_ops {
> > > Index: linux/driv
On Monday, December 17, 2012 05:08:17 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 23:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> > struct acpi_device_ops {
> > Index: linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ==
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 23:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
(snip)
> struct acpi_device_ops {
> Index: linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===
> --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/scan.
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Split the ACPI namespace scanning for devices into two passes, such
that struct acpi_device objects are registerd in the first pass
without probing ACPI drivers and the drivers are probed against them
directly in the second pass.
There are two main reasons for doing that.
14 matches
Mail list logo
