On 01/07/2022 13:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:54 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 01/07/2022 12:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:04 PM John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30/06/2022 19:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
However Yang Yingliang spotted a pre-existing bug in the ACPI probe and
sent a fix today (coincidence?):
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220701094352.2104998-1-yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
And they conflict. This code has been this way for years, so I just
suggest Yang Yingliang resends the fix on top off Rafael's change.
Wondering if Yang can actually switch that to use
platform_device_register_full().
Maybe that would work and simplify things. Let me check it.
BTW, when we originally upstreamed this driver there was some ACPI
platform device registration code which you/we thought could be factored
out later. I can't remember it. I was looking through lore but couldn't
find it. I don't remember it being so important, though.
My suggestion is definitely not for the fix itself, but as a follow up.
FWIW, it works out quite neatly:
diff --git a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
index e0fee1f863e6..70198d5644c7 100644
--- a/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
+++ b/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
@@ -472,9 +472,7 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_clear_enumerated(struct
acpi_device *adev, void *not_us
struct hisi_lpc_acpi_cell {
const char *hid;
- const char *name;
- void *pdata;
- size_t pdata_size;
+ struct platform_device_info pdevinfo;
};
static void hisi_lpc_acpi_remove(struct device *hostdev)
@@ -505,28 +503,36 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(struct
acpi_device *child, void *data)
/* ipmi */
{
.hid = "IPI0001",
- .name = "hisi-lpc-ipmi",
+ .pdevinfo = {
+ .name = "hisi-lpc-ipmi",
+ .num_res = num_res,
+ .res = res,
+ },
},
/* 8250-compatible uart */
{
.hid = "HISI1031",
- .name = "serial8250",
- .pdata = (struct plat_serial8250_port []) {
- {
- .iobase = res->start,
- .uartclk = 1843200,
- .iotype = UPIO_PORT,
- .flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF,
+ .pdevinfo = {
+ .name = "serial8250",
+ .data = (struct plat_serial8250_port []) {
+ {
+ .iobase = res->start,
+ .uartclk = 1843200,
+ .iotype = UPIO_PORT,
+ .flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF,
+ },
+ {}
},
- {}
+ .size_data = 2 *
+ sizeof(struct plat_serial8250_port),
+ .num_res = num_res,
+ .res = res,
},
- .pdata_size = 2 *
- sizeof(struct plat_serial8250_port),
},
{}
};
- for (; cell && cell->name; cell++) {
+ for (; cell && cell->pdevinfo.name; cell++) {
if (!strcmp(cell->hid, hid)) {
found = true;
break;
@@ -540,25 +546,13 @@ static int hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(struct
acpi_device *child, void *data)
return 0;
}
- pdev = platform_device_alloc(cell->name, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO);
+ pdev = platform_device_register_full(&cell->pdevinfo);
if (!pdev)
return -ENOMEM;
pdev->dev.parent = hostdev;
ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&pdev->dev, child);
- ret = platform_device_add_resources(pdev, res, num_res);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
- ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell->pdata, cell->pdata_size);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
- ret = platform_device_add(pdev);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
acpi_device_set_enumerated(child);
return 0;
And for the record, I think the Fixes even for very rare bug hits
should go first.
ok, I have to admit that I was going to feel awkward asking Rafael to
deal with this fix by having a v4 on top of it.
I don't think it's a problem as long as we have an immutable branch /
tag with that patch. Another approach could be that Rafael can take it
as a precursor for his series and route via ACPI tree, but let's hear
what he thinks about this himself.
ok, fine.
Thanks,
John
