Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:23:36 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: acpi_ec_ecdt_probe => acpi_ec_identify Message-ID: <201002050823.36322.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4B6BB8E2.6080204@root.org> References: <4B6B4A3C.5090308@icyb.net.ua> <4B6BB7AF.3040205@icyb.net.ua> <4B6BB8E2.6080204@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 05 February 2010 1:21:22 am Nate Lawson wrote: > Andriy Gapon wrote: > > on 05/02/2010 07:53 Nate Lawson said the following: > >> I agree in concept. The ECDT-based probe method was intended to get it > >> active as early as possible, and Linux has a quirk to create a fake ECDT > >> to get an early EC on some systems that require it but don't have an ECDT. > >> > >> However, I thought jhb@'s multi-pass probe work would be a better way to > >> support this than moving it into device_identify(). Is that code ready > >> to use yet? > > > > I agree with this. But, unfortunately, the code doesn't seem to be as ready as > > everyone would love it to be. > > Ok, then identify() is fine too. Also, once the multi-pass stuff is pushed down into the acpi(4) driver, an identify method would be the right way to do this. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201002050823.36322.jhb>