[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jOoH7nP-5uaK9XVL_zf7Uh5SZnoupRyxK1qxwUdwq_dA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:05:44 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, x86@...nel.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@...cle.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linuxarm@...wei.com, justin.he@....com,
jianyong.wu@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and_detach()
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 3:57 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Precursor patch adds the ability to pass a uintptr_t of flags into
> acpi_scan_check_and detach() so that additional flags can be
> added to indicate whether to defer portions of the eject flow.
> The new flag follows in the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
I have no specific heartburn related to this, so
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> v7: No change
> v6: Based on internal feedback switch to less invasive change
> to using flags rather than a struct.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index d1464324de95..1ec9677e6c2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -244,13 +244,16 @@ static int acpi_scan_try_to_offline(struct acpi_device *device)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check)
> +#define ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS BIT(0)
> +
> +static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p)
> {
> struct acpi_scan_handler *handler = adev->handler;
> + uintptr_t flags = (uintptr_t)p;
>
> - acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, check);
> + acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, p);
>
> - if (check) {
> + if (flags & ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS) {
> acpi_bus_get_status(adev);
> /*
> * Skip devices that are still there and take the enabled
> @@ -288,7 +291,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check)
>
> static void acpi_scan_check_subtree(struct acpi_device *adev)
> {
> - acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)true);
> + uintptr_t flags = ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS;
> +
> + acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags);
> }
>
> static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> @@ -2601,7 +2606,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_bus_scan);
> */
> void acpi_bus_trim(struct acpi_device *adev)
> {
> - acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, NULL);
> + uintptr_t flags = 0;
> +
> + acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_bus_trim);
>
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists