linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] ACPI: bus: implement acpi_get_physical_device

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiDSCsYcQBzUzjACQdhASarR9Ad4bnD035+DZzJnrQboXVDAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 20:55:55 +0100
From: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, 
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, 
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] ACPI: bus: implement acpi_get_physical_device_location
 when !ACPI

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 19:31, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:48 AM Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Provide an implementation of acpi_get_physical_device_location that can
> > be used when CONFIG_ACPI is not set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > index eaafca41cf02..4888231422ea 100644
> > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > @@ -43,9 +43,6 @@ acpi_status
> >  acpi_evaluate_ost(acpi_handle handle, u32 source_event, u32 status_code,
> >                   struct acpi_buffer *status_buf);
> >
> > -acpi_status
> > -acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld);
> > -
> >  bool acpi_has_method(acpi_handle handle, char *name);
> >  acpi_status acpi_execute_simple_method(acpi_handle handle, char *method,
> >                                        u64 arg);
> > @@ -60,6 +57,9 @@ bool acpi_check_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid, u64 rev, u64 funcs);
> >  union acpi_object *acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
> >                         u64 rev, u64 func, union acpi_object *argv4);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +acpi_status
> > +acpi_get_physical_device_location(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_pld_info **pld);
> > +
> >  static inline union acpi_object *
> >  acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid, u64 rev,
> >                         u64 func, union acpi_object *argv4,
> > @@ -1003,6 +1003,8 @@ static inline int unregister_acpi_bus_type(void *bus) { return 0; }
> >
> >  static inline int acpi_wait_for_acpi_ipmi(void) { return 0; }
> >
> > +#define acpi_get_physical_device_location(handle, pld) (AE_ERROR)
>
> This is a function, so static inline please.
>
> Analogously in patches [4,6/7].
>
> And you can merge patches [2-6/7] together into one patch, as far as
> I'm concerned.

I was trying to avoid some extra ACPI_PTR and a forward declaration...
But overall I think it looks nicers with static inlines.

I have kept the patches separately. Feel free to squash them if your
prefer that way


Thanks!
>
> > +
> >  #define for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, hid, uid, hrv)                   \
> >         for (adev = NULL; false && (hid) && (uid) && (hrv);)
> >
> >
> > --



-- 
Ricardo Ribalda