On 7/14/2016 5:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:06:30 -0400
> Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The code is using the compatible DT string to associate a reset driver
>> with the actual device itself. The compatible string does not exist on
>> ACPI based systems. HID is the unique identifier for a device driver
>> instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Baptiste Reynal <b.reynal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
>> index 6be92c3..ff148764 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> #include <linux/iommu.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>> @@ -49,6 +50,33 @@ static vfio_platform_reset_fn_t vfio_platform_lookup_reset(const char *compat,
>> return reset_fn;
>> }
>>
>
> This function still feels a bit sloppy
>
>> +static int vfio_platform_acpi_probe(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> + struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
>
> When !CONFIG_ACPI, this returns NULL
>
>> +
>> + if (acpi_disabled)
>
> When !CONFIG_ACPI, this is defined as 1, so we'll always exit here.
>
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
I'll move this here and leave the variable definition above only.
adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
>> + if (!adev) {
>
> This is really the only (ACPI_CONFIG && !acpi_disabled) error exit,
> because...
>
>> + pr_err("VFIO: ACPI companion device not found for %s\n",
>> + vdev->name);
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> + vdev->acpihid = acpi_device_hid(adev);
>
Based on the current implementation of acpi_device_hid, the function wlll
return a name of "device" when the pnp device id list is empty.
Do you want to rely on the current implementation behavior rather than be
safe?
> This can't actually return NULL. So the test below is unreached.
> Maybe we should just conclude this function here with:
>
> #endif
>
> return vdev->acpihid ? 0 : -ENOENT;
>
> which is even still a bit paranoid since it can't actually happen.
>
>> + if (!vdev->acpihid) {
>> + pr_err("VFIO: cannot find ACPI HID for %s\n",
>> + vdev->name);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +#else
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * There can be two kernel build combinations. One build where
>> + * ACPI is not selected in Kconfig and another one with the ACPI Kconfig.
>> + *
>> + * In the first case, vfio_platform_acpi_probe will return since
>> + * acpi_disabled * is 1. DT user will not see any kind of messages from
>
> ^^ Previous editing cruft?
Yep, good catch. Got warned by checkpatch for 80 characters.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
