On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 06:37:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:38:25PM +0800, guojinhui wrote:
> > From: "guojinhui" <guojinhui.liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Fixes: 4a60406d3592 ("driver core: platform: expose numa_node to users in sysfs")
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309122309.mbxAnAIe-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> > Signed-off-by: guojinhui <guojinhui.liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 4 +---
> > drivers/base/platform.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 14 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..206dc7b020cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -795,6 +795,18 @@ void platform_device_unregister(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_device_unregister);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>
> #ifdef do not belong in .c files if at all possible.
>
> Why can't this be an acpi call instead? Why does this have to be in the
> driver core? Platform drivers shouldn't know anything about acpi, this
> feels really odd.
>
> > +static inline void platform_set_dev_node(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> Also, it's not "platform_set", it is acpi-specifc, right? Again, the
> ACPI core should handle this for its ACPI-platform devices, the driver
> core shouldn't care at all.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
I agree with that. I will try to fix it in the ACPI code which call the platform function
soon.
thanks,
Jinhui Guo
