Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967048AbbDXVIr (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:08:47 -0400 Received: from mail-bl2on0129.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.129]:8154 "EHLO na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965580AbbDXVIo (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:08:44 -0400 Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 165.204.84.221) smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; intel.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-WSS-ID: 0NNBXE5-07-YZ8-02 X-M-MSG: Message-ID: <553AB0CF.1010904@amd.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:08:31 -0500 From: Suravee Suthikulpanit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Zheng, Lv" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com" , "Moore, Robert" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" CC: "lenb@kernel.org" , "hdegoede@redhat.com" , "tj@kernel.org" , "mjg59@srcf.ucam.org" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , "leo.duran@amd.com" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [V8 PATCH 1/3] ACPICA: Add ACPI _CLS processing References: <1427752579-19234-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1427752579-19234-2-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E8802704682@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E8802704682@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.180.168.240] X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:165.204.84.221;CTRY:US;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;BMV:1;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(428002)(189002)(164054003)(51704005)(479174004)(199003)(24454002)(86362001)(2950100001)(5001830100001)(4001350100001)(53416004)(65816999)(83506001)(80316001)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(87266999)(5001770100001)(92566002)(77096005)(65806001)(62966003)(65956001)(77156002)(59896002)(101416001)(33656002)(23746002)(46102003)(50466002)(2201001)(2501003)(87936001)(64126003)(47776003)(105586002)(36756003)(106466001)(5001920100001)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;H:atltwp01.amd.com;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:ovrnspm;MX:1;A:1;PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent;LANG:en; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR02MB256; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004)(5002010)(5005006)(3002001);SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR02MB207; X-Forefront-PRVS: 05568D1FF7 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2015 21:08:32.4115 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: fde4dada-be84-483f-92cc-e026cbee8e96 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=fde4dada-be84-483f-92cc-e026cbee8e96;Ip=[165.204.84.221];Helo=[atltwp01.amd.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR02MB207 X-OriginatorOrg: amd4.onmicrosoft.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1492 Lines: 36 On 4/16/15 20:45, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Before back porting this to ACPICA, let me ask one simple question. > According to the spec, the _CLS is optional and PCI specific. > So why should we implement it in ACPICA core not OSPM specific modules? > If this need to be implemented in ACPICA, then what about the following device identification objects? > _DDN, _HRV, _MLS, _PLD, _STR, _SUN > > Thanks and best regards > -Lv Hi, Sorry for late reply. As for the justification for introducing the _CLS support in the ACPICA, this is mainly because ACPI does not currently define _CID for certain device classes, which used to mostly be PCI devices. Instead, ACPI spec mentioned that _CLS can be used for loading generic drivers on hardware that is compatible with PCI-defined device classes, but that is not implemented on the PCI bus (and is therefore enumerated by ACPI.) The code introduced for supporting _CLS is also similar in the way ACPICA is currently parsing the _CID or _SUB (which are also optional), and using it for the same purpose of identifying devices for loading drivers. Also, since this method for identifying devices is OS-independent, I believe this should not be done in the OSPM specific modules. Thanks, Suravee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/