On Monday, November 19, 2012 08:23:34 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:13:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The current platform device creation and registration code in
> > acpi_create_platform_device() is quite convoluted. This function
> > takes an ACPI device node as an argument and eventually calls
> > platform_device_register_resndata() to create and register a
> > platform device object on the basis of the information contained
> > in that code. However, it doesn't associate the new platform
> > device with the ACPI node directly, but instead it relies on
> > acpi_platform_notify(), called from within device_add(), to find
> > that ACPI node again with the help of acpi_platform_find_device()
> > and acpi_platform_match() and then attach the new platform device
> > to it. This causes an additional ACPI namespace walk to happen and
> > is clearly suboptimal.
> >
> > Use the observation that it is now possible to initialize the ACPI
> > handle of a device before calling device_add() for it to make this
> > code more straightforward. Namely, add a new field to struct
> > platform_device_info allowing us to pass the ACPI handle of interest
> > to platform_device_register_full(), which will then use it to
> > initialize the new device's ACPI handle before registering it.
> > This will cause acpi_platform_notify() to use the ACPI handle from
> > the device structure directly instead of using the .find_device()
> > routine provided by the device's bus type. In consequence,
> > acpi_platform_bus, acpi_platform_find_device(), and
> > acpi_platform_match() are not necessary any more, so remove them.
>
> Why can't you use the platform_data * that is already in struct device
> for this, instead of adding an acpi-specific field to the
> platform_device structure?
Hmm, I kind of don't understand the question. :-)
Yes, we have acpi_handle in struct device (it actually is being added by a
patch you've acked) and we use it. The whole point here is to streamline
of the initalization of that field.
> If not that, surely there is another field in struct device that you
> could use that is free for this type of device?
Yes, there is one and as I said above. :-)
I'd be happy to use the struct device's field directly, but
platform_device_register_full() allocates memory for the struct device in
question, so that field actually doesn't exist yet when it is called.
> > struct platform_device_info {
> > struct device *parent;
> > + void *acpi_handle;
>
> Oh, and if I do accept this, I want a "real" structure pointer here
> please, not a void * "handle". That way is a slippery slope to the
> Windows kernel programming style :)
This is (void *), because the field being initialized is (void *). That field,
in turn, is (void *), because ACPICA defines it that way. I thought about
wrapping that in some more meaningless data type, but I did't find a way
that would work both when CONFIG_ACPI is set and when it is not. If you
have an idea how to do that in a clean way, I'd be happy to implement it. :-)
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
