[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3448237.NUtWjlv2Mb@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:20:37 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / driver core: Store a device pointer in struct acpi_dev_node
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:24:02 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:45:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Subject: ACPI / driver core: Store an ACPI device pointer in struct acpi_dev_node
> >
> > Modify struct acpi_dev_node to contain a pointer to struct acpi_device
> > associated with the given device object (that is, its ACPI companion
> > device) instead of an ACPI handle corresponding to it. Introduce two
> > new macros for manipulating that pointer in a CONFIG_ACPI-safe way,
> > ACPI_COMPANION() and ACPI_COMPANION_SET(), and rework the
> > ACPI_HANDLE() macro to take the above changes into account.
> > Drop the ACPI_HANDLE_SET() macro entirely and rework its users to
> > use ACPI_COMPANION_SET() instead. For some of them who used to
> > pass the result of acpi_get_child() directly to ACPI_HANDLE_SET()
> > introduce a helper routine acpi_preset_companion() doing an
> > equivalent thing.
> >
> > The main motivation for doing this is that there are things
> > represented by struct acpi_device objects that don't have valid
> > ACPI handles (so called fixed ACPI hardware features, such as
> > power and sleep buttons) and we would like to create platform
> > device objects for them and "glue" them to their ACPI companions
> > in the usual way (which currently is impossible due to the
> > lack of valid ACPI handles). However, there are more reasons
> > why it may be useful.
> >
> > First, struct acpi_device pointers allow of much better type checking
> > than void pointers which are ACPI handles, so it should be more
> > difficult to write buggy code using modified struct acpi_dev_node
> > and the new macros. Second, the change should help to reduce (over
> > time) the number of places in which the result of ACPI_HANDLE() is
> > passed to acpi_bus_get_device() in order to obtain a pointer to the
> > struct acpi_device associated with the given "physical" device,
> > because now that pointer is returned by ACPI_COMPANION() directly.
> > Finally, the change should make it easier to write generic code that
> > will build both for CONFIG_ACPI set and unset without adding explicit
> > compiler directives to it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> I tested this on Haswell as well and it works fine with ACPI enumerated
> platform, I2C and SPI devices.
>
> Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> (on Haswell)
> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Thanks!
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists