Thread (44 messages) 44 messages, 8 authors, 2021-05-17

Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ACPI: scan: Extend acpi_walk_dep_device_list()

From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-08 13:58:18
Also in: linux-acpi, linux-i2c, lkml, platform-driver-x86

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM Daniel Scally [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 22/02/2021 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
The acpi_walk_dep_device_list() is not as generalisable as its name
implies, serving only to decrement the dependency count for each
dependent device of the input. Extend the function to instead accept
a callback which can be applied to all the dependencies in acpi_dep_list.
Replace all existing calls to the function with calls to a wrapper, passing
a callback that applies the same dependency reduction.
The code looks okay to me, if it was the initial idea, feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <redacted>
...
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+void acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met(acpi_handle handle)
quoted
quoted
quoted
Since it's acpi_dev_* namespace, perhaps it should take struct acpi_device here?
I can do this, but I avoided it because in most of the uses in the
kernel currently there's no struct acpi_device, they're just passing
ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead, so I'd need to get the adev with
ACPI_COMPANION() in each place. It didn't seem worth it...
It may not even be possible sometimes, because that function may be
called before creating all of the struct acpi_device objects (like in
the case of deferred enumeration).
quoted
quoted
but happy to
do it if you'd prefer it that way?
I see, let Rafael decide then. I'm not pushing here.
Well, it's a matter of correctness.
Looking at your above comment it is indeed. Thanks for clarification!
But should we have acpi_dev_*() namespace for this function if it takes handle?

For time being nothing better than following comes to my mind:

__acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => __acpi_flag_device_dependency_met()
acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => acpi_flag_device_dependency_met()

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help