linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / platform: Initialize ACPI handles of platform devices in advance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:56:51 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, ben-linux@...ff.org,
	w.sang@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lenb@...nel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / platform: Initialize ACPI handles of platform devices in advance

On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:05:28 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:44:21PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So, we want to have acpi_handle (or acpi_node) in addition to of_node in struct
> > device (to be used in the analogous way plus for the execution of AML methods),
> > but we don't want all users of device.h to have to include ACPI headers
> > where the acpi_handle data type is defined.  For this reason, we're using
> > (void *) as its data type now, which let's say I'm not really happy with.
> > 
> > I've been thinking about that for quite a while, though, and I'm not really
> > sure what to do about that.  Perhaps we could define something like
> > 
> > struct acpi_dev_node {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > 	void *handle;
> > #endif
> > };
> > 
> > in device.h and use that as "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" in struct device.
> > Then, we could add the following macro
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > #define ACPI_HANDLE(dev)	((dev)->acpi_node.handle)
> > #else
> > #define ACPI_HANDLE(dev)	(NULL)
> > #endif
> > 
> > and redefine DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(dev) as ((acpi_handle)ACPI_HANDLE(dev)).
> > 
> > Then, the $subject patch would add "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" to
> > struct platform_device_info and use ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead of accessing
> > the struct device's field directly.
> 
> In addition to struct platform_device_info, we are also going to add
> similar to struct i2c_board_info. There already is of_node pointer so I was
> thinking to add acpi_handle like you did for platform_device.

Yeah, that's kind of something that comes to mind immediately. :-)

> Type of that pointer of course needs to be figured out :)

Yup.


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/