On 13/11/2020 19:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:22 PM Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:02:30AM +0000, Dan Scally wrote:
>>> On 29/10/2020 22:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:22:15AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:29:30PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> ...
>
>>>>> In this case we probably need something like
>>>>>
>>>>> struct acpi_device *
>>>>> acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev(struct acpi_device *adev,
>>>>> const char *hid, const char *uid, s64 hrv)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct device *start = adev ? &adev->dev : NULL;
>>>>> ...
>>>>> dev = bus_find_device(&acpi_bus_type, start, &match, acpi_dev_match_cb);
>>>>> ...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> in drivers/acpi/utils.c and
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline struct acpi_device *
>>>>> acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(const char *hid, const char *uid, s64 hrv)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev(NULL, hid, uid, hrv);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> in include/linux/acpi.h.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we may add
>>>>>
>>>>> #define for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, hid, uid, hrv) \
>>>>> for (adev = acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(hid, uid, hrv); \
>>>>> adev; \
>>>>> adev = acpi_dev_get_next_match_dev(adev, hid, uid, hrv))
>>>> What the cio2-bridge code needs is indeed
>>>>
>>>> for each hid in supported hids:
>>>> for each acpi device that is compatible with hid:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> which could also be expressed as
>>>>
>>>> for each acpi device:
>>>> if acpi device hid is in supported hids:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind either option, I'll happily follow the preference of the
>>>> ACPI maintainers.
>>> Does this need raising elsewhere then? The original idea of just
>>> bus_for_each_dev(&acpi_bus_type...) I have now tested and it works fine,
>>> but it does mean that I need to export acpi_bus_type (currently that
>>> symbol's not available)...that seems much simpler to me but I'm not sure
>>> whether that's something to avoid, and if so whether Andy's approach is
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> I like simple options :-) A patch to export acpi_bus_type, with enough
>> context in the commit message (and in the cover latter of the series),
>> should be enough to provide all the information the ACPI maintainers
>> need to decide which option is best. With a bit of luck that patch will
>> be considered the best option and no extra work will be needed.
> The problem with ACPI bus is that it is not as simple as other buses,
> i.e. it may have purely ACPI devices along with *companion* devices,
> which are usually represented by platform bus. On top of that for
> several ACPI devices there can be one physical node and it will be not
> so clear what you are exactly looking for by traversing acpi_bus_type.
> I believe it's hidden on purpose.
Alright - I followed your suggestion to implement the iterator instead
then and left acpi_bus_type hidden, thanks.
