Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932089AbVLILz0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:55:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751328AbVLILzZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:55:25 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:24555 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751083AbVLILzX (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:55:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:55:22 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Alan Cox , randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Message-ID: <20051209115522.GA17504@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Garrett , Alan Cox , randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20051208132657.GA21529@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208133308.GA13267@infradead.org> <20051208133945.GA21633@srcf.ucam.org> <1134050498.17102.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051208141811.GB21715@srcf.ucam.org> <1134052433.17102.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051208145257.GB21946@srcf.ucam.org> <20051208171901.GA22451@srcf.ucam.org> <20051209114246.GB16945@infradead.org> <20051209115009.GA25771@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051209115009.GA25771@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1169 Lines: 26 On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:50:09AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 11:42:46AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > As a concept it's _much_ better. Although it should be platform_scsi_init > > and every architecture would provide an, in most cases noop, implementation. > > How about > > if (platform_scsi_init) > platform_scsi_init(&scsi_bus_type); > > ? This is similar to how the platform_notify callback code is handled. > Making it per-arch isn't quite ideal, since x86 can be ACPI or APM and > kernels need support for both. On the other hand, I can't think of any > way that APM could do anything useful with the information, so per-arch > may be reasonable. I think a per-arch hook is better, if an architecture needs different backend implementations it can dispatch internally. And the above won't work unless platform_scsi_init is a function pointer which would be quite ugly. - 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/