On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:09:00PM +0800, guojinhui.liam wrote:
> platform_add_device creates numa_node attribute of sysfs according to
> whether dev_to_node(dev) is equal to NUMA_NO_NODE. So set the numa node
> of the device before creating numa_node attribute of sysfs.
Why? What will this allow to happen differently? What is broken with
the current code?
> Fixes: 4a60406d3592 ("driver core: platform: expose numa_node to users in sysfs")
> Signed-off-by: guojinhui.liam <guojinhui.liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Please use your name here, and not your email alias, as the first part
of the signed-off-by line.
And also, please fix up your email client to have the correct name as
well.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 4 +---
> drivers/base/platform.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> index 48d15dd785f6..adcbfbdc343f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> @@ -178,11 +178,9 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev,
> if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n",
> PTR_ERR(pdev));
> - else {
> - set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
> + else
> dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "created platform device %s\n",
> dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> - }
>
> kfree(resources);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index 76bfcba25003..355abf91930a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
> {
> int ret;
> struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device_node(pdevinfo->fwnode);
>
> pdev = platform_device_alloc(pdevinfo->name, pdevinfo->id);
> if (!pdev)
> @@ -841,6 +842,9 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
> goto err;
> }
>
> + if (adev)
> + set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
Are you sure that this platform code can always call acpi functions?
thanks,
greg k-h
