Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jul 2022 13:18:37 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] hisi_lpc: Use acpi_dev_for_each_child() | From | John Garry <> |
| |
On 01/07/2022 13:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote: >> On 01/07/2022 12:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Andy Shevchenko >>> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30/06/2022 19:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > ... > >>>>> However Yang Yingliang spotted a pre-existing bug in the ACPI probe and >>>>> sent a fix today (coincidence?): >>>>> >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220701094352.2104998-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/T/#u >>>>> >>>>> And they conflict. This code has been this way for years, so I just >>>>> suggest Yang Yingliang resends the fix on top off Rafael's change. >>>> >>>> Wondering if Yang can actually switch that to use >>>> platform_device_register_full(). >> >> Maybe that would work and simplify things. Let me check it. >> >> BTW, when we originally upstreamed this driver there was some ACPI >> platform device registration code which you/we thought could be factored >> out later. I can't remember it. I was looking through lore but couldn't >> find it. I don't remember it being so important, though. > > My suggestion is definitely not for the fix itself, but as a follow up.
FWIW, it works out quite neatly:
diff --git a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c index e0fee1f863e6..70198d5644c7 100644 --- a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c +++ b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c @@ -472,9 +472,7 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_clear_enumerated(struct acpi_device *adev, void *not_us
struct hisi_lpc_acpi_cell { const char *hid; - const char *name; - void *pdata; - size_t pdata_size; + struct platform_device_info pdevinfo; };
static void hisi_lpc_acpi_remove(struct device *hostdev) @@ -505,28 +503,36 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(struct acpi_device *child, void *data) /* ipmi */ { .hid = "IPI0001", - .name = "hisi-lpc-ipmi", + .pdevinfo = { + .name = "hisi-lpc-ipmi", + .num_res = num_res, + .res = res, + }, }, /* 8250-compatible uart */ { .hid = "HISI1031", - .name = "serial8250", - .pdata = (struct plat_serial8250_port []) { - { - .iobase = res->start, - .uartclk = 1843200, - .iotype = UPIO_PORT, - .flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF, + .pdevinfo = { + .name = "serial8250", + .data = (struct plat_serial8250_port []) { + { + .iobase = res->start, + .uartclk = 1843200, + .iotype = UPIO_PORT, + .flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF, + }, + {} }, - {} + .size_data = 2 * + sizeof(struct plat_serial8250_port), + .num_res = num_res, + .res = res, }, - .pdata_size = 2 * - sizeof(struct plat_serial8250_port), }, {} };
- for (; cell && cell->name; cell++) { + for (; cell && cell->pdevinfo.name; cell++) { if (!strcmp(cell->hid, hid)) { found = true; break; @@ -540,25 +546,13 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(struct acpi_device *child, void *data) return 0; }
- pdev = platform_device_alloc(cell->name, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO); + pdev = platform_device_register_full(&cell->pdevinfo); if (!pdev) return -ENOMEM;
pdev->dev.parent = hostdev; ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&pdev->dev, child);
- ret = platform_device_add_resources(pdev, res, num_res); - if (ret) - return ret; - - ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell->pdata, cell->pdata_size); - if (ret) - return ret; - - ret = platform_device_add(pdev); - if (ret) - return ret; - acpi_device_set_enumerated(child);
return 0; > >>> And for the record, I think the Fixes even for very rare bug hits >>> should go first. >> >> ok, I have to admit that I was going to feel awkward asking Rafael to >> deal with this fix by having a v4 on top of it. > > I don't think it's a problem as long as we have an immutable branch / > tag with that patch. Another approach could be that Rafael can take it > as a precursor for his series and route via ACPI tree, but let's hear > what he thinks about this himself. >
ok, fine.
Thanks, John
| |