On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:37:10PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 7:16 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 7:10 PM Russell King (Oracle)
> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I guess we need something like:
> > >
> > > if (device->status.present)
> > > return device->device_type != ACPI_BUS_TYPE_PROCESSOR ||
> > > device->status.enabled;
> > > else
> > > return device->status.functional;
> > >
> > > so we only check device->status.enabled for processor-type devices?
> >
> > Yes, something like this.
>
> However, that is not sufficient, because there are
> ACPI_BUS_TYPE_DEVICE devices representing processors.
>
> I'm not sure about a clean way to do it ATM.
Ok, how about:
static bool acpi_dev_is_processor(const struct acpi_device *device)
{
struct acpi_hardware_id *hwid;
if (device->device_type == ACPI_BUS_TYPE_PROCESSOR)
return true;
if (device->device_type != ACPI_BUS_TYPE_DEVICE)
return false;
list_for_each_entry(hwid, &device->pnp.ids, list)
if (!strcmp(ACPI_PROCESSOR_OBJECT_HID, hwid->id) ||
!strcmp(ACPI_PROCESSOR_DEVICE_HID, hwid->id))
return true;
return false;
}
and then:
if (device->status.present)
return !acpi_dev_is_processor(device) || device->status.enabled;
else
return device->status.functional;
?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
