| Message ID | 2159292.upDGjkPUz6@vostro.rjw.lan (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 06/09/2013 06:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > There is no particular reason why acpi_bus_driver_init() needs to be > a separate function and its location with respect to its only caller, > acpi_device_probe(), makes the code a bit difficult to follow. > > Besides, it doesn't really make sense to check if 'device' is not > NULL in acpi_bus_driver_init(), because we've already dereferenced > dev->driver in acpi_device_probe() at that point, so that check has > to be moved to acpi_device_probe() anyway. > > For these reasons, drop acpi_bus_driver_init() altogether and move > the code from it directly into acpi_device_probe(). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > > Should apply on top of the bleeding-edge branch of the linux-pm.git tree. > > Thanks, > Rafael > > --- > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha > acpi_device_notify); > } > > -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); > static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) > { > - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); > - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); > + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; > + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; > int ret; > > - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); > - if (!ret) { > - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { > - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); > - if (ret) { > - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) > - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); > - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; > - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; > - return ret; > - } > - } > + if (!dev || !dev->driver) > + return -EINVAL; Just out of curiosity, will dev ever be NULL in this function? This function is called in really_probe by dev->bus->probe after assigning dev->driver, so does the above check make any sense? Thanks, Aaron > + > + acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); > + acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); > + if (!acpi_drv->ops.add) > + return -ENOSYS; > + > + ret = acpi_drv->ops.add(acpi_dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + acpi_dev->driver = acpi_drv; > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, > + "Driver [%s] successfully bound to device [%s]\n", > + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); > > - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, > - "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", > - acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); > - get_device(dev); > + if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { > + ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); > + if (ret) { > + if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) > + acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); > + > + acpi_dev->driver = NULL; > + acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; > + return ret; > + } > } > - return ret; > + > + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", > + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); > + get_device(dev); > + return 0; > } > > static int acpi_device_remove(struct device * dev) > @@ -1114,41 +1127,6 @@ static void acpi_device_unregister(struc > Driver Management > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ > /** > - * acpi_bus_driver_init - add a device to a driver > - * @device: the device to add and initialize > - * @driver: driver for the device > - * > - * Used to initialize a device via its device driver. Called whenever a > - * driver is bound to a device. Invokes the driver's add() ops. > - */ > -static int > -acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *device, struct acpi_driver *driver) > -{ > - int result = 0; > - > - if (!device || !driver) > - return -EINVAL; > - > - if (!driver->ops.add) > - return -ENOSYS; > - > - result = driver->ops.add(device); > - if (result) > - return result; > - > - device->driver = driver; > - > - /* > - * TBD - Configuration Management: Assign resources to device based > - * upon possible configuration and currently allocated resources. > - */ > - > - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, > - "Driver successfully bound to device\n")); > - return 0; > -} > - > -/** > * acpi_bus_register_driver - register a driver with the ACPI bus > * @driver: driver being registered > * > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/09/2013 09:19 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 06/09/2013 06:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> >> There is no particular reason why acpi_bus_driver_init() needs to be >> a separate function and its location with respect to its only caller, >> acpi_device_probe(), makes the code a bit difficult to follow. >> >> Besides, it doesn't really make sense to check if 'device' is not >> NULL in acpi_bus_driver_init(), because we've already dereferenced >> dev->driver in acpi_device_probe() at that point, so that check has >> to be moved to acpi_device_probe() anyway. >> >> For these reasons, drop acpi_bus_driver_init() altogether and move >> the code from it directly into acpi_device_probe(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> --- >> >> Should apply on top of the bleeding-edge branch of the linux-pm.git tree. >> >> Thanks, >> Rafael >> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) >> >> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c >> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c >> @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha >> acpi_device_notify); >> } >> >> -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); >> static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) >> { >> - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); >> - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); >> + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; >> + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; >> int ret; >> >> - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); >> - if (!ret) { >> - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { >> - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); >> - if (ret) { >> - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) >> - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); >> - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; >> - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; >> - return ret; >> - } >> - } >> + if (!dev || !dev->driver) >> + return -EINVAL; > > Just out of curiosity, will dev ever be NULL in this function? > This function is called in really_probe by dev->bus->probe after > assigning dev->driver, so does the above check make any sense? BTW, I also tested the patch on a desktop and two laptops, no problems found. Feel free to add my tested-by tag. Thanks, Aaron > > Thanks, > Aaron > >> + >> + acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); >> + acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); >> + if (!acpi_drv->ops.add) >> + return -ENOSYS; >> + >> + ret = acpi_drv->ops.add(acpi_dev); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + acpi_dev->driver = acpi_drv; >> + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, >> + "Driver [%s] successfully bound to device [%s]\n", >> + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); >> >> - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, >> - "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", >> - acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); >> - get_device(dev); >> + if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { >> + ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); >> + if (ret) { >> + if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) >> + acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); >> + >> + acpi_dev->driver = NULL; >> + acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; >> + return ret; >> + } >> } >> - return ret; >> + >> + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", >> + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); >> + get_device(dev); >> + return 0; >> } >> >> static int acpi_device_remove(struct device * dev) >> @@ -1114,41 +1127,6 @@ static void acpi_device_unregister(struc >> Driver Management >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ >> /** >> - * acpi_bus_driver_init - add a device to a driver >> - * @device: the device to add and initialize >> - * @driver: driver for the device >> - * >> - * Used to initialize a device via its device driver. Called whenever a >> - * driver is bound to a device. Invokes the driver's add() ops. >> - */ >> -static int >> -acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *device, struct acpi_driver *driver) >> -{ >> - int result = 0; >> - >> - if (!device || !driver) >> - return -EINVAL; >> - >> - if (!driver->ops.add) >> - return -ENOSYS; >> - >> - result = driver->ops.add(device); >> - if (result) >> - return result; >> - >> - device->driver = driver; >> - >> - /* >> - * TBD - Configuration Management: Assign resources to device based >> - * upon possible configuration and currently allocated resources. >> - */ >> - >> - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, >> - "Driver successfully bound to device\n")); >> - return 0; >> -} >> - >> -/** >> * acpi_bus_register_driver - register a driver with the ACPI bus >> * @driver: driver being registered >> * >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 09:54:49 AM Aaron Lu wrote: > On 06/09/2013 09:19 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On 06/09/2013 06:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> > >> There is no particular reason why acpi_bus_driver_init() needs to be > >> a separate function and its location with respect to its only caller, > >> acpi_device_probe(), makes the code a bit difficult to follow. > >> > >> Besides, it doesn't really make sense to check if 'device' is not > >> NULL in acpi_bus_driver_init(), because we've already dereferenced > >> dev->driver in acpi_device_probe() at that point, so that check has > >> to be moved to acpi_device_probe() anyway. > >> > >> For these reasons, drop acpi_bus_driver_init() altogether and move > >> the code from it directly into acpi_device_probe(). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> --- > >> > >> Should apply on top of the bleeding-edge branch of the linux-pm.git tree. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rafael > >> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > >> > >> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >> =================================================================== > >> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >> @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha > >> acpi_device_notify); > >> } > >> > >> -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); > >> static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) > >> { > >> - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); > >> - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); > >> + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; > >> + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; > >> int ret; > >> > >> - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); > >> - if (!ret) { > >> - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { > >> - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); > >> - if (ret) { > >> - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) > >> - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); > >> - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; > >> - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; > >> - return ret; > >> - } > >> - } > >> + if (!dev || !dev->driver) > >> + return -EINVAL; > > > > Just out of curiosity, will dev ever be NULL in this function? > > This function is called in really_probe by dev->bus->probe after > > assigning dev->driver, so does the above check make any sense? Well, it makes sense as such, but it's not useful. :-) > BTW, I also tested the patch on a desktop and two laptops, no problems > found. Feel free to add my tested-by tag. I've modified the patch to remove that check and will post it again shortly. Can you please give the new version a run? Rafael
On 06/10/2013 06:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 09:54:49 AM Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 06/09/2013 09:19 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: >>> On 06/09/2013 06:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >>>> >>>> There is no particular reason why acpi_bus_driver_init() needs to be >>>> a separate function and its location with respect to its only caller, >>>> acpi_device_probe(), makes the code a bit difficult to follow. >>>> >>>> Besides, it doesn't really make sense to check if 'device' is not >>>> NULL in acpi_bus_driver_init(), because we've already dereferenced >>>> dev->driver in acpi_device_probe() at that point, so that check has >>>> to be moved to acpi_device_probe() anyway. >>>> >>>> For these reasons, drop acpi_bus_driver_init() altogether and move >>>> the code from it directly into acpi_device_probe(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Should apply on top of the bleeding-edge branch of the linux-pm.git tree. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rafael >>>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c >>>> @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha >>>> acpi_device_notify); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); >>>> static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) >>>> { >>>> - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); >>>> - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); >>>> + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; >>>> + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; >>>> int ret; >>>> >>>> - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); >>>> - if (!ret) { >>>> - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { >>>> - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); >>>> - if (ret) { >>>> - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) >>>> - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); >>>> - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; >>>> - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; >>>> - return ret; >>>> - } >>>> - } >>>> + if (!dev || !dev->driver) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>> >>> Just out of curiosity, will dev ever be NULL in this function? >>> This function is called in really_probe by dev->bus->probe after >>> assigning dev->driver, so does the above check make any sense? > > Well, it makes sense as such, but it's not useful. :-) > >> BTW, I also tested the patch on a desktop and two laptops, no problems >> found. Feel free to add my tested-by tag. > > I've modified the patch to remove that check and will post it again shortly. > Can you please give the new version a run? Actually, I added: dev_info(dev, "%s: driver=%s\n", __func__, dev->driver->name); before the if (!dev || !dev->driver) check while doing the tests to verify my thoughts, so your new patch should also be fine on those test systems, and my tested-by should still qualify. It's national holiday here (6/10-6/12), but if you want to be sure, I can do the tests on 6/13 when getting back to work. Thanks, Aaron -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Monday, June 10, 2013 09:28:58 PM Aaron Lu wrote: > On 06/10/2013 06:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 09:54:49 AM Aaron Lu wrote: > >> On 06/09/2013 09:19 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > >>> On 06/09/2013 06:28 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >>>> > >>>> There is no particular reason why acpi_bus_driver_init() needs to be > >>>> a separate function and its location with respect to its only caller, > >>>> acpi_device_probe(), makes the code a bit difficult to follow. > >>>> > >>>> Besides, it doesn't really make sense to check if 'device' is not > >>>> NULL in acpi_bus_driver_init(), because we've already dereferenced > >>>> dev->driver in acpi_device_probe() at that point, so that check has > >>>> to be moved to acpi_device_probe() anyway. > >>>> > >>>> For these reasons, drop acpi_bus_driver_init() altogether and move > >>>> the code from it directly into acpi_device_probe(). > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Should apply on top of the bleeding-edge branch of the linux-pm.git tree. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Rafael > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- > >>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >>>> =================================================================== > >>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > >>>> @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha > >>>> acpi_device_notify); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); > >>>> static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) > >>>> { > >>>> - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); > >>>> - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); > >>>> + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; > >>>> + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; > >>>> int ret; > >>>> > >>>> - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); > >>>> - if (!ret) { > >>>> - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { > >>>> - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); > >>>> - if (ret) { > >>>> - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) > >>>> - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); > >>>> - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; > >>>> - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; > >>>> - return ret; > >>>> - } > >>>> - } > >>>> + if (!dev || !dev->driver) > >>>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> > >>> Just out of curiosity, will dev ever be NULL in this function? > >>> This function is called in really_probe by dev->bus->probe after > >>> assigning dev->driver, so does the above check make any sense? > > > > Well, it makes sense as such, but it's not useful. :-) > > > >> BTW, I also tested the patch on a desktop and two laptops, no problems > >> found. Feel free to add my tested-by tag. > > > > I've modified the patch to remove that check and will post it again shortly. > > Can you please give the new version a run? > > Actually, I added: > dev_info(dev, "%s: driver=%s\n", __func__, dev->driver->name); > before the if (!dev || !dev->driver) check while doing the tests to > verify my thoughts, so your new patch should also be fine on those > test systems, and my tested-by should still qualify. > > It's national holiday here (6/10-6/12), but if you want to be sure, I > can do the tests on 6/13 when getting back to work. That won't hurt, but it's 3.11 material anyway, so it's going to get some testing (hopefully). Thanks, Rafael
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -933,32 +933,45 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha acpi_device_notify); } -static int acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *, struct acpi_driver *); static int acpi_device_probe(struct device * dev) { - struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); - struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev; + struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv; int ret; - ret = acpi_bus_driver_init(acpi_dev, acpi_drv); - if (!ret) { - if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { - ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); - if (ret) { - if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) - acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); - acpi_dev->driver = NULL; - acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; - return ret; - } - } + if (!dev || !dev->driver) + return -EINVAL; + + acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev); + acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(dev->driver); + if (!acpi_drv->ops.add) + return -ENOSYS; + + ret = acpi_drv->ops.add(acpi_dev); + if (ret) + return ret; + + acpi_dev->driver = acpi_drv; + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, + "Driver [%s] successfully bound to device [%s]\n", + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, - "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", - acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); - get_device(dev); + if (acpi_drv->ops.notify) { + ret = acpi_device_install_notify_handler(acpi_dev); + if (ret) { + if (acpi_drv->ops.remove) + acpi_drv->ops.remove(acpi_dev); + + acpi_dev->driver = NULL; + acpi_dev->driver_data = NULL; + return ret; + } } - return ret; + + ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Found driver [%s] for device [%s]\n", + acpi_drv->name, acpi_dev->pnp.bus_id)); + get_device(dev); + return 0; } static int acpi_device_remove(struct device * dev) @@ -1114,41 +1127,6 @@ static void acpi_device_unregister(struc Driver Management -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ /** - * acpi_bus_driver_init - add a device to a driver - * @device: the device to add and initialize - * @driver: driver for the device - * - * Used to initialize a device via its device driver. Called whenever a - * driver is bound to a device. Invokes the driver's add() ops. - */ -static int -acpi_bus_driver_init(struct acpi_device *device, struct acpi_driver *driver) -{ - int result = 0; - - if (!device || !driver) - return -EINVAL; - - if (!driver->ops.add) - return -ENOSYS; - - result = driver->ops.add(device); - if (result) - return result; - - device->driver = driver; - - /* - * TBD - Configuration Management: Assign resources to device based - * upon possible configuration and currently allocated resources. - */ - - ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, - "Driver successfully bound to device\n")); - return 0; -} - -/** * acpi_bus_register_driver - register a driver with the ACPI bus * @driver: driver being registered *