On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 16:18 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> A example patch would be something like the following, I didn't seperate
> these ACPI calls in sr.c as this is just a concept proof, if this is the
> right thing to do, I will separate them into another file sr-acpi.c and
> make empty stubs for them in sr.h for systems do not have ACPI configured.
Apart from the needed separation to compile in the !ACPI case
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sr.c b/drivers/scsi/sr.c
> index ef72682..94d17f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sr.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sr.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>
> #include <scsi/scsi.h>
> @@ -57,6 +58,8 @@
> #include <scsi/scsi_host.h>
> #include <scsi/scsi_ioctl.h> /* For the door lock/unlock commands */
>
> +#include <acpi/acpi_bus.h>
> +
> #include "scsi_logging.h"
> #include "sr.h"
>
> @@ -212,8 +220,8 @@ static int sr_resume(struct device *dev)
> scsi_test_unit_ready(cd->device, SR_TIMEOUT, MAX_RETRIES, &sshdr);
>
> /* If user wakes up the ODD, eject the tray */
> - if (cd->device->need_eject) {
> - cd->device->need_eject = 0;
> + if (cd->need_eject) {
> + cd->need_eject = false;
> /* But only for tray type ODD when door is not locked */
> if (!(cd->cdi.mask & CDC_CLOSE_TRAY) && !cd->door_locked)
> sr_tray_move(&cd->cdi, 1);
> @@ -704,6 +711,58 @@ static void sr_release(struct cdrom_device_info *cdi)
>
> }
>
> +static void sr_acpi_wake_dev(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = context;
> + struct scsi_cd *cd = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + if (event == ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_WAKE && pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
> + cd->need_eject = true;
> + pm_runtime_resume(dev);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void sr_acpi_add_pm_notifier(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct acpi_device *acpi_dev;
> + acpi_handle handle;
> + acpi_status status;
> +
> + handle = dev->archdata.acpi_handle;
This is a complete no-no. archdata is defined to be specific to the
architecture it's supposed to be opaque to non-arch code. You'll find
that only x86 and ia64 defines an acpi_handle there. This will
instantly fail to compile on non intel. If you need the handle, it
should be obtained via some accessor like dev_to_acpi_handle() which
will allow this to continue to function when, say, arm acquires ACPI.
I've got to say, this looks like a fault in ACPI itself. If the handles
are 1:1 with struct device, then why not have all the functions taking
handles take the device instead and leave the embedded handle safely in
the architecture specific code?
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
