Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755579AbXLBNfQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:35:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752839AbXLBNfD (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:35:03 -0500 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44393 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752373AbXLBNfB (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:35:01 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init From: Thomas Renninger Reply-To: trenn@suse.de To: Rene Herman Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel , akpm , "Li, Shaohua" , Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <4750ABCB.6090705@keyaccess.nl> References: <1196442277.23251.318.camel@queen.suse.de> <47509EB6.20300@keyaccess.nl> <200711301652.42110.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <4750ABCB.6090705@keyaccess.nl> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:34:56 +0100 Message-Id: <1196602496.4049.51.camel@queen.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2137 Lines: 54 On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 01:33 +0100, Rene Herman wrote: > On 01-12-07 00:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Friday 30 November 2007 04:37:26 pm Rene Herman wrote: > >> On 30-11-07 18:04, Thomas Renninger wrote: > >>> If I have not overseen something, it should be rather obvious that those > >>> can all be declared __init... > >>> --------------- > >>> > >>> Declare PNP option parsing functions as __init > >>> > >>> There are three kind of parse functions provided by PNP acpi/bios: > >>> - get current resources > >>> - set resources > >>> - get possible resources > >>> The first two may be needed later at runtime. > >>> The possible resource settings should never change dynamically. > >>> And even if this would make any sense (I doubt it), the current implementation > >>> only parses possible resource settings at early init time: > >>> -> declare all the option parsing __init > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger > >> Yes. Obviousness aside, > >> > >> (0) pnpacpi_add_device is only caller of > >> ... > > > > I agree this is probably safe in the current implementation. > > > > However, I think the current implementation is just broken because > > we can't really handle hotplug of ACPI devices. Specifically, I think > > the first TBD in acpi_bus_check_device() should be fleshed out so it > > does something like pnpacpi_add_device(). > > > > So my dissenting opinion is that this patch would just get reverted > > soon anyway when somebody finishes implementing ACPI hotplug, and > > therefore it's not worth doing. > > > > The PnPBIOS bits should still be fine at least I guess. And, it would seem > this is rather essential to Thomas' efforts of making this stuff dynamic in > the first place anyway. No it is not. It is just another optimization I saw while going through these code parts... Thomas -- 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/