linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add SDHCI ACPI driver

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]

Message-ID: <50AF4C39.4040209@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:13:13 +0200
From:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add SDHCI ACPI driver

On 23/11/12 11:34, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:24:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 22, 2012 04:46:10 PM Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 22/11/12 15:55, Chris Ball wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 22 2012, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Here is SDHCI ACPI driver.  It is dependent on new ACPI Platform support
>>>>> so I suggest Rafael takes the patches with Chris' Ack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that I would prefer this to be queued for 3.8
>>>>
>>>> Looks fine:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have some dumb questions, though -- what kind of platforms ship with
>>>> these devices?  Do they ever have the controller on PCI too, and what
>>>> happens with sdhci-pci vs. sdhci-acpi in that case?
>>>
>>> Since the arrival of ACPI5, platform devices can be configured using ACPI
>>> tables.  PCI can also be used, but the firmware ensures that the same
>>> device is not enumerated via both ACPI and PCI.
>>>
>>> Rafael can you take these patches?
>>
>> Well, I'd prefer pnpacpi/core.c to actually use acpi_platform_device_ids[]
>> directly in addition to excluded_id_list[], so that duplicate entries don't
>> have to be added to the both of them.
> 
> How about having pnpacpi to check if the ACPI device is already bound to a
> physical device and skip the device creation? Then we don't need to expose
> the acpi_platform_device_ids[] list, and this is what the ->find_device()
> code already does so why create the device in the first place?

Yes, I was going to suggest that too.  AFAICS pnpacpi has no concept of
multiple physical nodes.  Any objections?


> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> index 5b17cc8..4dc2e64 100644
> --- a/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
> @@ -243,6 +243,10 @@ static int __init pnpacpi_add_device(struct acpi_device *device)
>  	char *pnpid;
>  	struct acpi_hardware_id *id;
>  
> +	/* Skip devices that are already bound */
> +	if (device->physical_node_count)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * If a PnPacpi device is not present , the device
>  	 * driver should not be loaded.
> 
> 

--
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/