On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:26 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary > indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM, > which is also subject to retpolines. > > Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that, > as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI > except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when > ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line, > or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system). > > To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM > functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm > object that is not necessary any more. > > Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do > extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously > was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer > in those cases). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > v1 -> v2: > * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct > pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch. > > I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't > apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree? > > This is on top of > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ > which is not yet in any tree. > > Sorry for the confusion. > > No problem at all. If I can I will try to report back tonight. Else, will be delayed 2 due to a short break. Thank you!
