On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:01:17PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> ACPICA allows associating additional information (i.e. pointers with
> specific tag) to acpi_handles. The acpi_device's are associated to
> acpi_handle's in acpi_tie_acpi_dev() in scan.c, do the same here for the
> _DSD data nodes.
>
> This allows direct data node references in properties, implemented later on
> in the series.
...
> +static int acpi_tie_nondev_subnodes(struct acpi_device_data *data)
> +{
> + struct acpi_data_node *dn;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(dn, &data->subnodes, sibling) {
> + acpi_status status;
> + int ret;
> +
> + status = acpi_attach_data(dn->handle, acpi_nondev_subnode_tag, dn);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> + acpi_handle_err(dn->handle, "Can't tag data node\n");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + ret = acpi_tie_nondev_subnodes(&dn->data);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> - if (!adev->data.pointer) {
> + if (!adev->data.pointer ||
> + acpi_tie_nondev_subnodes(&adev->data) < 0) {
> + acpi_untie_nondev_subnodes(&adev->data);
I don't know this part of the code, but this looks unusual. Shouldn't _tie()
take care of proper error path itself?
Also, it's a bit strange to call _untie() when _tie() wasn't called.
> acpi_handle_debug(adev->handle, "Invalid _DSD data, skipping\n");
> ACPI_FREE(buf.pointer);
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
