On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:19:02 AM Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:57:01 AM Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Sat, 6 Feb 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Shannon Zhao <zhaoshenglong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > ACPI 6.0 introduces a new table STAO to list the devices which are used
> > > > > by Xen and can't be used by Dom0. On Xen virtual platforms, the physical
> > > > > UART is used by Xen. So here it hides UART from Dom0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Well, this doesn't look right to me.
> > > >
> > > > We need to find a nicer way to achieve what you want.
> > >
> > > I take that you are talking about how to honor the STAO table in Linux.
> > > Do you have any concrete suggestions?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > The last hunk of the patch is likely what it needs to be, although I'm
> > not sure if the place it is added to is the right one. That's a minor thing,
> > though.
> >
> > The other part is problematic. Not that as it doesn't work, but because of
> > how it works. With these changes the device will be visible to the OS (in
> > fact to user space even), but will never be "present". I'm not sure if
> > that's what you want?
> >
> > It might be better to add a check to acpi_bus_type_and_status() that will
> > evaluate the "should ignore?" thing and return -ENODEV if this is true. This
> > way the device won't be visible at all.
>
> Something like below? Actually your suggestion is better, thank you!
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 78d5f02..4778c51 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1455,6 +1455,9 @@ static int acpi_bus_type_and_status(acpi_handle handle, int *type,
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + if (acpi_check_device_is_ignored(handle))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> switch (acpi_type) {
> case ACPI_TYPE_ANY: /* for ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT */
> case ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE:
>
I thought about doing that under ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, because it shouldn't be
applicable to the other types. But generally, yes.
Plus I'd move the table checks to acpi_scan_init(), so the UART address can
be a static variable in scan.c.
Also maybe rename acpi_check_device_is_ignored() to something like
acpi_device_should_be_hidden().
Thanks,
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
