linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects from probing ACPI drivers

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:	Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:32:57 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects from probing ACPI drivers

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:38:01 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 07:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > 
> > Currently, as soon as an ACPI device node object (struct acpi_device)
> snip
>   
> > @@ -1600,48 +1608,77 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac
> >  	 * We may already have an acpi_device from a previous enumeration.  If
> >  	 * so, we needn't add it again, but we may still have to start it.
> >  	 */
> > -	device = NULL;
> >  	acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device);
> >  	if (ops->acpi_op_add && !device) {
> > -		acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, ops);
> > -		/* Is the device a known good platform device? */
> > -		if (device
> > -		    && !acpi_match_device_ids(device, acpi_platform_device_ids))
> > -			acpi_create_platform_device(device);
> > -	}
> > +		struct acpi_bus_ops add_ops = *ops;
> >  
> > -	if (!device)
> > -		return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > -
> > -	if (ops->acpi_op_start && !(ops->acpi_op_add)) {
> > -		status = acpi_start_single_object(device);
> > -		if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > +		add_ops.acpi_op_match = 0;
> > +		acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, &add_ops);
> > +		if (!device)
> >  			return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > +
> > +		device->bus_ops.acpi_op_match = 1;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (!*return_value)
> >  		*return_value = device;
> > +
> >  	return AE_OK;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_probe_start(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> > +					void *context, void **not_used)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_bus_ops *ops = context;
> > +	struct acpi_device *device;
> > +	acpi_status status = AE_OK;
> > +
> > +	if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device))
> > +		return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > +
> > +	if (ops->acpi_op_add) {
> > +		if (!acpi_match_device_ids(device, acpi_platform_device_ids)) {
> > +			/* This is a known good platform device. */
> > +			acpi_create_platform_device(device);
> > +		} else {
> > +			int ret = device_attach(&device->dev);
> > +			acpi_hot_add_bind(device);
> > +			if (ret)
> > +				status = AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > +		}
> > +	} else if (ops->acpi_op_start) {
> > +		if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_start_single_object(device)))
> > +			status = AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > +	}
> > +	return status;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int acpi_bus_scan(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_bus_ops *ops,
> >  			 struct acpi_device **child)
> >  {
> > -	acpi_status status;
> >  	void *device = NULL;
> > +	acpi_status status;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> >  
> >  	status = acpi_bus_check_add(handle, 0, ops, &device);
> > -	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > +		ret = -ENODEV;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > +			    acpi_bus_check_add, NULL, ops, &device);
> > +	if (device)
> >  		acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > -				    acpi_bus_check_add, NULL, ops, &device);
> > +				    acpi_bus_probe_start, NULL, ops, NULL);
> Hi Rafael,
> 	Should we call acpi_bus_probe_start for the top device corresponding to 
> "handle" too here?

Do you mean separately?  I don't think so.  It will be covered by the namespace
walking, won't it?

Rafael


-- 
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/