| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <50C9D29F.9040508@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:05:35 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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 12/13/2012 06:32 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
Hi Rafael,
According to test results from Yijing, we do need to call acpi_bus_probe_start
for the top device corresponding to "handle".
Comments for acpi_walk_namespace says:
/*******************************************************************************
*
* FUNCTION: acpi_walk_namespace
*
* DESCRIPTION: Performs a modified depth-first walk of the namespace tree,
* starting (and ending) at the object specified by start_handle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* The callback function is called whenever an object that matches
* the type parameter is found. If the callback function returns
* a non-zero value, the search is terminated immediately and this
* value is returned to the caller.
*
* The point of this procedure is to provide a generic namespace
* a non-zero value, the search is terminated immediately and this
* value is returned to the caller.
*
* The point of this procedure is to provide a generic namespace
* walk routine that can be called from multiple places to
* provide multiple services; the callback function(s) can be
* tailored to each task, whether it is a print function,
* a compare function, etc.
*
******************************************************************************/
But acpi_ns_walk_namespace() doesn't really call the pre_order_visit and post_order_visit
for the start_handle. That means acpi_walk_namespace won't call the callback for the top
handle.
acpi_ns_walk_namespace(acpi_object_type type,
acpi_handle start_node,
u32 max_depth,
u32 flags,
acpi_walk_callback pre_order_visit,
acpi_walk_callback post_order_visit,
void *context, void **return_value)
{
.........................................
parent_node = start_node;
child_node = acpi_ns_get_next_node(parent_node, NULL);
child_type = ACPI_TYPE_ANY;
level = 1;
/*
* Traverse the tree of nodes until we bubble back up to where we
* started. When Level is zero, the loop is done because we have
* bubbled up to (and passed) the original parent handle (start_entry)
*/
while (level > 0 && child_node) {
...........................................
}
>
> Rafael
>
>
--
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