Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934157AbdCWKuB (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:50:01 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48248 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934111AbdCWKtv (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:49:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:50:29 +0100 From: Joerg Roedel To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Joerg Roedel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Don't create a platform_device for IOAPIC/IOxAPIC Message-ID: <20170323105029.GJ8329@suse.de> References: <1490204005-2733-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <1490204005-2733-4-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> <2232546.0OJbVJtxLm@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170322225853.GH8329@suse.de> <20170322235805.GH7266@8bytes.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 667 Lines: 14 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:06:44AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > The main problem is that representing anything hot-removable as a > platform device is inherently fragile, as the platform bus type has no > idea whatever about things that may physically go away and platform > drivers don't expect that devices may vanish from under them in > general and so on. Unregistration alone doesn't help much with that, > so IMO at least for now it's better to avoid using platform_device for > hot-removable stuff. Okay, thanks for the explanation. So patch 2 could be dropped, should I resend without that patch or do you want to pick them up from this post? Joerg