On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 06:17:48 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 23:49 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> :
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * acpi_bus_hot_remove_device: hot-remove a device and its children
> > + * @context: struct acpi_eject_event pointer (freed in this func)
> > + *
> > + * Hot-remove a device and its children. This function frees up the
> > + * memory space passed by arg context, so that the caller may call
> > + * this function asynchronously through acpi_os_hotplug_execute().
> > + */
> > +void acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(void *context)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_eject_event *ej_event = context;
> > + struct acpi_device *device = ej_event->device;
> > + acpi_handle handle = device->handle;
> > + u32 ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_SUCCESS;
> > + int error;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_scan_lock);
> > +
> > + error = acpi_scan_hot_remove(device);
> > + if (error)
> > + ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_NON_SPECIFIC_FAILURE;
> > +
> > + acpi_evaluate_hotplug_ost(handle, ej_event->event, ost_code, NULL);
>
> Thanks for the quick update. It fixed the deadlock issue. :-) As it
> now completes an eject operation, I found a new issue. When the OS
> called _EJ0, it is not supposed to call _OST since FW has already
> received the completion status from _EJ0. That is, the OS calls either
> _EJ0 (success case) or _OST (failure case) for hot-delete.
In fact, I wasn't quite sure about that, so thanks a lot for the clarification.
That makes life a bit easier, actually. :-)
I'll send a second update in a little while.
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
