On Monday, November 19, 2012 06:45:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 06:32:06 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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
>
> s/meaningless/meaningful/
Well, perhaps I'll describe the problem to you, maybe you can help. :-)
So, we want to have acpi_handle (or acpi_node) in addition to of_node in struct
device (to be used in the analogous way plus for the execution of AML methods),
but we don't want all users of device.h to have to include ACPI headers
where the acpi_handle data type is defined. For this reason, we're using
(void *) as its data type now, which let's say I'm not really happy with.
I've been thinking about that for quite a while, though, and I'm not really
sure what to do about that. Perhaps we could define something like
struct acpi_dev_node {
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
void *handle;
#endif
};
in device.h and use that as "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" in struct device.
Then, we could add the following macro
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
#define ACPI_HANDLE(dev) ((dev)->acpi_node.handle)
#else
#define ACPI_HANDLE(dev) (NULL)
#endif
and redefine DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(dev) as ((acpi_handle)ACPI_HANDLE(dev)).
Then, the $subject patch would add "struct acpi_dev_node acpi_node;" to
struct platform_device_info and use ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead of accessing
the struct device's field directly.
I wonder what you think?
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
