On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:57 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:44:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Confusingly enough, the ACPI subsystem stores the information on the given ACPI > > device's children in two places: as the list of children in struct acpi_device > > and (as a result of device registration) in the list of children in the embedded > > struct device. > > > > These two lists agree with each other most of the time, but not always (like in > > error paths in some cases), and the list of children in struct acpi_device is > > not generally safe to use without locking. In principle, it should always be > > walked under acpi_device_lock, but in practice holding acpi_scan_lock is > > sufficient for that too. However, its users may not know whether or not > > they operate under acpi_scan_lock and at least in some cases it is not accessed > > in a safe way (note that ACPI devices may go away as a result of hot-remove, > > unlike OF nodes). > > > > For this reason, it is better to consolidate the code that needs to walk the > > children of an ACPI device which is the purpose of this patch series. > > > > Overall, it switches over all of the users of the list of children in struct > > acpi_device to using helpers based on the driver core's mechanics and finally > > drops that list, but some extra cleanups are done on the way. > > > > Please refer to the patch changelogs for details. > > Cool series, thanks for doing that! > > You may add my > Revieweed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > to all non-commented, by me, patches (excluding soundwire) and to ones > where comment just about one line/two lines split (address them if you > are okay, otherwise ignore those comments). Thank you!
