On Monday, November 12, 2012 04:46:21 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:02:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently, whoever wants to use ACPI device resources has to call
> > acpi_walk_resources() to browse the buffer returned by the _CRS
> > method for the given device and create filters passed to that
> > routine to apply to the individual resource items. This generally
> > is cumbersome, time-consuming and inefficient. Moreover, it may
> > be problematic if resource conflicts need to be resolved, because
> > the different users of _CRS will need to do that in a consistent
> > way.
> >
> > For this reason, add code to the ACPI core to execute _CRS once,
> > when the struct acpi_device object is created for a given device
> > node, and attach a list of ACPI resources returned by _CRS to that
> > object for future processing.
> >
> > Convert the ACPI code that creates platform device objects to using
> > the new resources list instead of executing acpi_walk_resources() by
> > itself, which makes it much more straightforward and easier to
> > follow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 90 ++++++++++++-------------------------------
> > drivers/acpi/resource.c | 12 +++++
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 6 ++
> > include/linux/acpi.h | 1
> > 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > +++ linux/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > @@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ struct acpi_device_physical_node {
> > struct device *dev;
> > };
> >
> > +struct acpi_resource_list_entry {
> > + struct list_head node;
> > + struct acpi_resource resource;
> > +};
> > +
> > /* set maximum of physical nodes to 32 for expansibility */
> > #define ACPI_MAX_PHYSICAL_NODE 32
> >
> > @@ -268,6 +273,7 @@ struct acpi_device {
> > acpi_handle handle; /* no handle for fixed hardware */
> > struct acpi_device *parent;
> > struct list_head children;
> > + struct list_head resources; /* Device resources. */
> > struct list_head node;
> > struct list_head wakeup_list;
> > struct acpi_device_status status;
> > Index: linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -382,6 +382,52 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_files(str
> > ACPI Bus operations
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
> >
> > +static void acpi_bus_drop_resources(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_resource_list_entry *entry, *s;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, s, &adev->resources, node) {
> > + list_del(&entry->node);
> > + kfree(entry);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_add_resource(struct acpi_resource *res,
> > + void *context)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *list = context;
> > + struct acpi_resource_list_entry *entry;
> > +
> > + entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!entry)
> > + return AE_NO_MEMORY;
> > +
> > + entry->resource = *res;
>
> This does not work well with all resource types - specifically those that
> contain pointers, like acpi_resource_gpio and acpi_resource_source.
Good point.
Well, this pretty much means we can't copy those things.
> The memory for the resources gets freed once acpi_walk_resources() is done.
I know that.
Having to evaluate _CRS and creating a buffer, converting the output into
ACPI resources and so on every time we need to look into the device's current
resources is totally inefficient. We _need_ to cache the _CRS output.
Now, because of the pointers in certain types of resources, we can't
make copies of the resource objects used by acpi_walk_resources() which
makes that function totally unuseful to us.
I suppose we can just do acpi_get_current_resources() and play with the
buffer returned by it. That won't be nice, but still better than what we
have.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
