| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:27:30 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with the pm tree
Hi Lee,
Today's linux-next merge of the mfd tree got a conflict in:
drivers/acpi/scan.c
between commit:
68c6b148daa6 ("ACPI / scan: Move device matching code to bus.c")
from the pm tree and commit:
712e960f0ee9 ("ACPI / PM: Attach ACPI power domain only once")
from the mfd tree.
I fixed it up by adding the following merge fix patch and can carry the
fix as necessary.
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:20 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / PM: merge fix for code movement
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
---
drivers/acpi/bus.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
index 54a2e66ce236..afc15bf929d8 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
@@ -482,6 +482,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
Device Matching
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
+/**
+ * acpi_device_is_first_physical_node - Is given dev first physical node
+ * @adev: ACPI companion device
+ * @dev: Physical device to check
+ *
+ * Function checks if given @dev is the first physical devices attached to
+ * the ACPI companion device. This distinction is needed in some cases
+ * where the same companion device is shared between many physical devices.
+ *
+ * Note that the caller have to provide valid @adev pointer.
+ */
+bool acpi_device_is_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev,
+ const struct device *dev)
+{
+ bool ret = false;
+
+ mutex_lock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
+ if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
+ const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
+
+ node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
+ struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
+ ret = node->dev == dev;
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&adev->physical_node_lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
/*
* acpi_companion_match() - Can we match via ACPI companion device
* @dev: Device in question
@@ -506,7 +535,6 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
struct acpi_device *acpi_companion_match(const struct device *dev)
{
struct acpi_device *adev;
- struct mutex *physical_node_lock;
adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
if (!adev)
@@ -515,21 +543,7 @@ struct acpi_device *acpi_companion_match(const struct device *dev)
if (list_empty(&adev->pnp.ids))
return NULL;
- physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock;
- mutex_lock(physical_node_lock);
- if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
- adev = NULL;
- } else {
- const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
-
- node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
- struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
- if (node->dev != dev)
- adev = NULL;
- }
- mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock);
-
- return adev;
+ return acpi_device_is_first_physical_node(adev, dev) ? adev : NULL;
}
/**
--
2.4.6
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists