On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 8:27 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 08:25:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi Mika,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:07 AM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:11:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Use acpi_find_child_by_adr() to find the child matching a given bus
> > > > address instead of tb_acpi_find_port() that walks the list of children
> > > > of an ACPI device directly for this purpose and drop the latter.
> > > >
> > > > Apart from simplifying the code, this will help to eliminate the
> > > > children list head from struct acpi_device as it is redundant and it
> > > > is used in questionable ways in some places (in particular, locking is
> > > > needed for walking the list pointed to it safely, but it is often
> > > > missing).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > * Drop tb_acpi_find_port() (Heikki, Andy).
> > > > * Change the subject accordingly
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c | 27 ++++-----------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > > > @@ -301,26 +301,6 @@ static bool tb_acpi_bus_match(struct dev
> > > > return tb_is_switch(dev) || tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_port(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > > > - const struct tb_port *port)
> > > > -{
> > > > - struct acpi_device *port_adev;
> > > > -
> > > > - if (!adev)
> > > > - return NULL;
> > > > -
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Device routers exists under the downstream facing USB4 port
> > > > - * of the parent router. Their _ADR is always 0.
> > > > - */
> > > > - list_for_each_entry(port_adev, &adev->children, node) {
> > > > - if (acpi_device_adr(port_adev) == port->port)
> > > > - return port_adev;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - return NULL;
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(struct tb_switch *sw)
> > > > {
> > > > struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> > > > @@ -331,7 +311,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switc
> > > > struct tb_port *port = tb_port_at(tb_route(sw), parent_sw);
> > > > struct acpi_device *port_adev;
> > > >
> > > > - port_adev = tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev), port);
> > > > + port_adev = acpi_find_child_by_adr(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev),
> > > > + port->port);
> > > > if (port_adev)
> > > > adev = acpi_find_child_device(port_adev, 0, false);
> > > > } else {
> > > > @@ -364,8 +345,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_
> > > > if (tb_is_switch(dev))
> > > > return tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(tb_to_switch(dev));
> > > > else if (tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev))
> > > > - return tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(dev->parent),
> > > > - tb_to_usb4_port_device(dev)->port);
> > >
> > > Can you move the above comment here too?
> >
> > Do you mean to move the comment from tb_acpi_find_port() right here or
> > before the if (tb_is_switch(dev)) line above?
> >
> > I think that tb_acpi_switch_find_companion() would be a better place
> > for that comment. At least it would match the code passing 0 to
> > acpi_find_child_device() in there.
>
> Yes, I agree (as long as the comment stays somewhere close ;-))
OK, I'll move it to tb_acpi_switch_find_companion() then.
Thanks!
