On Monday, August 05, 2013 04:20:19 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 16:03 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 06:32:02 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 02:47 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 02, 2013 04:38:38 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 00:33 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > Modify acpi_bind_one() so that it doesn't fail if the device > > > > > > represented by its first argument has already been bound to the > > > > > > given ACPI handle (second argument), because that is not a good > > > > > > enough reason for returning an error code. > > > > > > > > > > While it seems reasonable to allow such case, I do not think we will hit > > > > > this case under the normal scenarios. So, I do not think we need to > > > > > make this change now unless it actually solves Yasuaki's issue (which I > > > > > am guessing not). > > > > > > > > In theory it should be possible to call acpi_bind_one() twice in a row > > > > for the same dev and the same handle without failure, that simply is > > > > logical. The patch may not fix any problems visible now, but returning an > > > > error code in such a case is simply incorrect. > > > > > > We changed acpi_bus_device_attach() to not call the handler or driver > > > again if it is already bound. So, I was under impression that we > > > prevent from attaching a same device twice. But I may be missing > > > something... > > > > acpi_bind_one() may be called in code paths that don't start from > > acpi_bus_device_attach(), like acpi_platform_notify(), where the result > > depends on how .find_device() is implemented by the the given bus type, > > for example. > > acpi_bind_one() always returns with 0 when it sets a handle to the > device. So, acpi_platform_notify() should not call .find_device() in > this case. acpi_bus_check_add() is also protected from adding a same > device twice. But I see your point that the callers of acpi_bind_one() > could be changed / implementation dependent. So, I agree that it would > be prudent to have this change. > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> Thanks! I wonder what you think about this patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2838675/ Rafael -- 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
