On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:39 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 22/02/2021 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> The acpi_walk_dep_device_list() is not as generalisable as its name > > > > > >> implies, serving only to decrement the dependency count for each > > > > > >> dependent device of the input. Extend the function to instead accept > > > > > >> a callback which can be applied to all the dependencies in acpi_dep_list. > > > > > >> Replace all existing calls to the function with calls to a wrapper, passing > > > > > >> a callback that applies the same dependency reduction. > > > > > > The code looks okay to me, if it was the initial idea, feel free to add > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > ... > > > > > > > >> +void acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met(acpi_handle handle) > > > > > > > > Since it's acpi_dev_* namespace, perhaps it should take struct acpi_device here? > > > > > > > > > > I can do this, but I avoided it because in most of the uses in the > > > > > kernel currently there's no struct acpi_device, they're just passing > > > > > ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead, so I'd need to get the adev with > > > > > ACPI_COMPANION() in each place. It didn't seem worth it... > > > > > > It may not even be possible sometimes, because that function may be > > > called before creating all of the struct acpi_device objects (like in > > > the case of deferred enumeration). > > > > > > > > but happy to > > > > > do it if you'd prefer it that way? > > > > > > > > I see, let Rafael decide then. I'm not pushing here. > > > > > > Well, it's a matter of correctness. > > > > Looking at your above comment it is indeed. Thanks for clarification! > > Well, actually, the struct device for the object passed to this > function should be there already, because otherwise it wouldn't make > sense to update the list. So my comment above is not really > applicable to this particular device and the function could take a > struct acpi_device pointer argument. Sorry for the confusion. > > > But should we have acpi_dev_*() namespace for this function if it takes handle? > > It takes a device object handle. > > Anyway, as per the above, it can take a struct acpi_device pointer > argument in which case the "acpi_dev_" prefix should be fine. > > > For time being nothing better than following comes to my mind: > > > > __acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => __acpi_flag_device_dependency_met() > > acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => acpi_flag_device_dependency_met() > > The above said, the name is somewhat confusing overall IMV. > > Something like acpi_dev_clear_dependencies() might be better. > > So lets make it something like > > void acpi_dev_clear_dependencies(struct acpi_device *supplier); To be precise, there are two functions in the patch, acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() which invokes acpi_walk_dep_device_list() and __acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() invoked by the latter as a callback. Above I was talking about the first one. The callback should still take a struct acpi_dep_data pointer argument and I would call it acpi_scan_clear_dep() or similar.
