[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4ebf8ba-6f95-d20c-d7fb-e97b6535f71f@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:55:01 +0200
From: "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
<vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
<dave.jiang@...el.com>, <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
<rui.zhang@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/10] acpi/nfit: Move handler installing logic to
driver
On 6/29/2023 6:18 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:51 PM Michal Wilczynski
> <michal.wilczynski@...el.com> wrote:
>> Currently logic for installing notifications from ACPI devices is
>> implemented using notify callback in struct acpi_driver. Preparations
>> are being made to replace acpi_driver with more generic struct
>> platform_driver, which doesn't contain notify callback. Furthermore
>> as of now handlers are being called indirectly through
>> acpi_notify_device(), which decreases performance.
>>
>> Call acpi_dev_install_notify_handler() at the end of .add() callback.
>> Call acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler() at the beginning of .remove()
>> callback. Change arguments passed to the notify function to match with
>> what's required by acpi_install_notify_handler(). Remove .notify
>> callback initialization in acpi_driver.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> index 95930e9d776c..a281bdfee8a0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>> @@ -3312,11 +3312,13 @@ void acpi_nfit_shutdown(void *data)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_nfit_shutdown);
>>
>> -static void acpi_nfit_notify(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 event)
>> +static void acpi_nfit_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
>> {
>> - device_lock(&adev->dev);
>> - __acpi_nfit_notify(&adev->dev, adev->handle, event);
>> - device_unlock(&adev->dev);
> It's totally not necessary to rename the ACPI device variable here.
>
> Just add
>
> struct acpi_device *adev = data;
>
> to this function.
Sure, is adev a preferred name for acpi_device ? I've seen a mix of different naming
in drivers, some use device, adev, acpi_dev and so on. I suppose it's not a big deal, but
it would be good to know.
>
>> + struct acpi_device *device = data;
>> +
>> + device_lock(&device->dev);
>> + __acpi_nfit_notify(&device->dev, handle, event);
>> + device_unlock(&device->dev);
>> }
>>
>> static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_device *adev)
>> @@ -3375,12 +3377,23 @@ static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_device *adev)
>>
>> if (rc)
>> return rc;
>> - return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, acpi_nfit_shutdown, acpi_desc);
>> +
>> + rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, acpi_nfit_shutdown, acpi_desc);
>> + if (rc)
>> + return rc;
>> +
>> + return acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(adev,
>> + ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
>> + acpi_nfit_notify);
>> }
>>
>> static void acpi_nfit_remove(struct acpi_device *adev)
>> {
>> /* see acpi_nfit_unregister */
>> +
>> + acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(adev,
>> + ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
>> + acpi_nfit_notify);
>> }
>>
>> static void acpi_nfit_update_notify(struct device *dev, acpi_handle handle)
>> @@ -3465,7 +3478,6 @@ static struct acpi_driver acpi_nfit_driver = {
>> .ops = {
>> .add = acpi_nfit_add,
>> .remove = acpi_nfit_remove,
>> - .notify = acpi_nfit_notify,
>> },
>> };
>>
>> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists