lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/4] ACPI / scan: Initialize status to ACPI_STA_DEFAULT
    From
    Date
    Hi,

    On 09-08-18 11:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
    >> Since commit 63347db0affa ("ACPI / scan: Use acpi_bus_get_status() to
    >> initialize ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE devs") the status field of normal acpi_devices
    >> gets set to 0 by acpi_bus_type_and_status() and filled with its actual
    >> value later when acpi_add_single_object() calls acpi_bus_get_status().
    >>
    >> This means that any acpi_match_device_ids() calls in between will always
    >> fail with -ENOENT.
    >>
    >> We already have a workaround for this, which temporary forces status to
    >> ACPI_STA_DEFAULT in drivers/acpi/x86/utils.c: acpi_device_always_present()
    >> and the next commit in this series adds another acpi_match_device_ids()
    >> call between status being initialized as 0 and the acpi_bus_get_status()
    >> call.
    >>
    >> Rather then adding another workaround, this commit makes
    >> acpi_bus_type_and_status() initialize status to ACPI_STA_DEFAULT, this is
    >> safe to do as the only code looking at status between the initialization
    >> and the acpi_bus_get_status() call is those acpi_match_device_ids() calls.
    >>
    >> Note this does mean that we need to (re)set status to 0 in case the
    >> acpi_bus_get_status() call fails.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
    >> ---
    >> Changes in v3:
    >> -New patch in v3 of this patch-set
    >>
    >> Changes in v4:
    >> -This is not a fix for acpi_is_indirect_io_slave() as I thought at first,
    >> acpi_is_indirect_io_slave() calls acpi_match_device_ids() on its parent
    >> device, where status is already set properly. Rewrite the commit message
    >> accordingly.
    >
    > I've applied the v4 of this patch and I don't think there are any
    > changes from it here.

    Correct, there were only changes to the 4th patch in the series.

    > As for the rest of the series I'll wait from comments from Wolfram and
    > the other reviewers.

    Ok, note if you've taken patch 1 you may also want to take patch 3 which
    is an ACPI code cleanup made possible by patch 1 and otherwise is
    unrelated.

    Regards,

    Hans

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-08-09 11:41    [W:2.797 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site