On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:24:56PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> 2016-03-24 10:39 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Monday 21 March 2016 16:13:34 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> 2016-03-21 13:17 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> >> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> >> + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + return 0;
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> >> + struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> >> + acpi_status status;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * Clear the flag only after we received the extra
> >> >> + * ACPI notification.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> >> >> + rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> >> >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >> >> + rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> >
> >> > I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag,
> >> > right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails,
> >> > then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing
> >> > just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I
> >> > think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here.
> >> >
> >> > Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was
> >> > reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"?
> >>
> >> acpi_os_execute doesn't wait for the callback to be executed, so
> >> I can't clear the flag from rbtn_resume.
> >
> > acpi_os_execute calls callback asynchronously later? Or what exactly do it?
>
> In this case, it adds the callback to the kacpi_notify_wq workqueue
> for deferred execution.
+Rafael for context/advice on the use of acpi_os_execute here.
This is true, but a quick scan through that call path doesn't tell me why we
would need to call it here instead of just setting rbtn_data->suspended = false.
The comment suggests waiting for the event, but is that what this is doing? It
appears to me to be immediately scheduling the function to a work queue, not
waiting for the event notifier.
Also, since there is no indication to the user that a failure occurs, this
function is basically equivalent in the success and failure case (the success
case is just slower).
Am I missing something critical here?
>
> > --
> > Pali Rohár
> > pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
>
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
