On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 06:30:52 +0200
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 09/28/2015 04:49 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel
> > requires before being able to use the device driver model.
> >
> > ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one
> > we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and
> > clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up
> > and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly
> > hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer.
> >
> > In order to allow some basic probing based on the ACPI tables,
> > introduce "struct acpi_probe_entry" which contains just enough
> > data and callbacks to match a table, an optional subtable, and
> > call a probe function. A driver can, at build time, register itself
> > and expect being called if the right entry exists in the ACPI
> > table.
> >
> > A acpi_probe_device_table() is provided, taking an identifier for
> > a set of acpi_prove_entries, and iterating over the registered
> > entries.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 10 ++++++
> > include/linux/acpi.h | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 115 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > index f834b8c..daf9fc8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -1913,3 +1913,42 @@ int __init acpi_scan_init(void)
> > mutex_unlock(&acpi_scan_lock);
> > return result;
> > }
> > +
> > +static struct acpi_probe_entry *ape;
> > +static int acpi_probe_count;
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(acpi_probe_lock);
> > +
> > +static int __init acpi_match_madt(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> > + const unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > + if (!ape->subtable_valid || ape->subtable_valid(header, ape))
> > + if (!ape->probe_subtbl(header, end))
> > + acpi_probe_count++;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __init __acpi_probe_device_table(struct acpi_probe_entry *ap_head, int nr)
> > +{
> > + int count = 0;
> > +
> > + if (acpi_disabled)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&acpi_probe_lock);
> > + for (ape = ap_head; nr; ape++, nr--) {
> > + if (ACPI_COMPARE_NAME(ACPI_SIG_MADT, ape->id)) {
> > + acpi_probe_count = 0;
> > + acpi_table_parse_madt(ape->type, acpi_match_madt, 0);
>
> Isn't supposed 'acpi_table_parse_madt' to return the count ? and
> shouldn't the return code be checked ?
acpi_table_madt_parse() returns the count of the entries it has parsed.
We're interested in the count of entries that have been successfully
probed. Not quite the same thing.
As for the return code, checking it is highly symbolic, because there
is no way we can recover from an error in the ACPI parsing - we're
dead anyway, as we end up without interrupt controller. I can add a
WARN_ON(), but I'm not sure more noise will help understanding the
problem.
There is also the perfectly valid case where ACPI has been forcefully
disabled (or on arm64, not forcefully enabled). In which case, the
parsing code will abort early, and there is no reason to scream about
it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
--
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
