Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] ACPI / scan: Initialize status to ACPI_STA_DEFAULT | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:39:47 +0200 |
| |
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
| |