On 8/18/2023 05:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:31:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 7:15 AM Mario Limonciello
<mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
+int acpi_get_lps0_constraint(struct device *dev)
I think that some overhead would be reduced below if this were taking
a struct acpi_device pointer as the argument.
Hmm... Either you need a pointer to handle, which involves pointer arithmetics
or something else. I would believe if you tell that ACPI handle should be passed,
but current suggestion is not obvious to me how it may help.
To Rafael's point about overhead there are potentially "less" calls into
acpi_get_lps0_constraint if it's a 'struct acpi_device' pointer because
it won't be called by caller for any devices that don't have an ACPI
companion.
+{
+ struct lpi_constraints *entry;
+
+ for_each_lpi_constraint(entry) {
+ if (!device_match_acpi_handle(dev, entry->handle))
Here we retrieve handle...
+ continue;
+ acpi_handle_debug(entry->handle,
+ "ACPI device constraint: %d\n", entry->min_dstate);
+ return entry->min_dstate;
+ }
+ dev_dbg(dev, "No ACPI device constraint specified\n");
...and here we are using dev directly (otherwise acpi_handle_dbg() should be used).
I'll just move the debugging statements into the caller of
acpi_get_lps0_constraint().
+ return -ENODEV;
ACPI_STATE_UNKNOWN?
Much better, thanks.
+}
