Messages in this thread | | | Subject | /sys/firmware/acpi (Re: [ACPI] [PATCH/RFC 4/4]An experimental implementation for IDE bus) | From | Len Brown <> | Date | 09 Nov 2004 00:35:39 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 10:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > ... Are we ever going to do anything > with /sys/firmware/acpi/namespace/ or will it just stay around > consuming inodes and dentries for no good reason?
When I suggested deleting /sys/firmware/acpi, Patrick replied that his intention was that real devices would have symbolic links into that tree.
I think this is not the best way to go. Two simple reasons come to mind:
The ACPI device hierarchy reflects the actual layout of the system devices better than the current /sys/devices/ tree, linking into it from /sys/devices doesn't fix /sys/devices. Instead we need to consult ACPI during the actual construction of /sys/devices/.
While the layout reflects reality, the device names in /sys/firmware/acpi are arbitrary internal BIOS names, and so there will never be any consistency between systems such that a human or a program could have an easy time navigating the tree structure.
The argument in favor of exposing the tree has been for things like Alex Williamson's patch to invoke ACPI methods by reading /sysfs. But this is a really neat solution looking for a problem. if and when such a problem is found, the same technique can always be made available under the real /sys/devices tree.
-Len
- 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/
| |