[PATCH 0/3] ACPI: Remove unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls

[PATCH 0/3] ACPI: Remove unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls

[Kelsey Skunberg]

Remove acpi_has_method() calls which return an error a following call will
provide anyways. Removing the unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls help to
clean up code and remove extra work.

Kelsey Skunberg (3):
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c |  5 -----
 drivers/acpi/scan.c      |  3 ---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c   | 11 +++--------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: Remove unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls

[Kelsey Skunberg]

Remove acpi_has_method() calls which return an error a following call will
provide anyways. Removing the unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls help to
clean up code and remove extra work.

Kelsey Skunberg (3):
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c |  5 -----
 drivers/acpi/scan.c      |  3 ---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c   | 11 +++--------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 0/3] ACPI: Remove unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls

[skunberg.kelsey]

Remove acpi_has_method() calls which return an error a following call will
provide anyways. Removing the unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls help to
clean up code and remove extra work.

Kelsey Skunberg (3):
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c
  ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c |  5 -----
 drivers/acpi/scan.c      |  3 ---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c   | 11 +++--------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
@@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
-		pr_info("No DSM method\n");
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
-
 	if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
 			    ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
 			    ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
@@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
-		pr_info("No DSM method\n");
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
-
 	if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
 			    ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
 			    ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[skunberg.kelsey]

acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
@@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	}
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
-		pr_info("No DSM method\n");
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
-
 	if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
 			    ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
 			    ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
>                 return -ENODEV;
>         }
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");

And why is printing the message not useful?

> -               return -ENODEV;
> -       }
> -
>         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
>                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
>                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
>                 return -ENODEV;
>         }
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");

And why is printing the message not useful?

> -               return -ENODEV;
> -       }
> -
>         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
>                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
>                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[rafael]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
>                 return -ENODEV;
>         }
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");

And why is printing the message not useful?

> -               return -ENODEV;
> -       }
> -
>         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
>                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
>                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Bjorn Helgaas]

[+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> 
> And why is printing the message not useful?
> 
> > -               return -ENODEV;
> > -       }
> > -
> >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {

The next line of context (not included in the patch):

               pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");

IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.

This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".

There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
the second one like this:

-              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
+              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
+                      path);

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Bjorn Helgaas]

[+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> 
> And why is printing the message not useful?
> 
> > -               return -ENODEV;
> > -       }
> > -
> >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {

The next line of context (not included in the patch):

               pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");

IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.

This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".

There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
the second one like this:

-              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
+              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
+                      path);

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[helgaas]

[+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> 
> And why is printing the message not useful?
> 
> > -               return -ENODEV;
> > -       }
> > -
> >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {

The next line of context (not included in the patch):

               pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");

IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.

This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".

There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
the second one like this:

-              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
+              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
+                      path);

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Sorry for the delayed reply.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> >
> > And why is printing the message not useful?
> >
> > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > -       }
> > > -
> > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
>
> The next line of context (not included in the patch):
>
>                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
>
> IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
>
> This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
>
> There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> the second one like this:
>
> -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> +                      path);

You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.

As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Sorry for the delayed reply.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> >
> > And why is printing the message not useful?
> >
> > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > -       }
> > > -
> > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
>
> The next line of context (not included in the patch):
>
>                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
>
> IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
>
> This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
>
> There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> the second one like this:
>
> -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> +                      path);

You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.

As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[rafael]

Sorry for the delayed reply.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> >
> > And why is printing the message not useful?
> >
> > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > -       }
> > > -
> > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
>
> The next line of context (not included in the patch):
>
>                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
>
> IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
>
> This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
>
> There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> the second one like this:
>
> -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> +                      path);

You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.

As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:08:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > > <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> > >
> > > And why is printing the message not useful?
> > >
> > > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > > -       }
> > > > -
> > > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> >
> > The next line of context (not included in the patch):
> >
> >                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> >
> > IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> > or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> > in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> > acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
> >
> > This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> > definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> > possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
> >
> > There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> > their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> > sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> > the second one like this:
> >
> > -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> > +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> > +                      path);
> 
> You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.
> 
> As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

You're right, the changelog should include this information. I'll get an
updated version made. Thank you for getting back.

-Kelsey

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:08:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > > <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> > >
> > > And why is printing the message not useful?
> > >
> > > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > > -       }
> > > > -
> > > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> >
> > The next line of context (not included in the patch):
> >
> >                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> >
> > IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> > or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> > in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> > acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
> >
> > This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> > definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> > possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
> >
> > There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> > their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> > sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> > the second one like this:
> >
> > -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> > +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> > +                      path);
> 
> You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.
> 
> As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

You're right, the changelog should include this information. I'll get an
updated version made. Thank you for getting back.

-Kelsey

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c

[skunberg.kelsey]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:08:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > > <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > > >  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > > >                 return -ENODEV;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > -       if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > > -               pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> > >
> > > And why is printing the message not useful?
> > >
> > > > -               return -ENODEV;
> > > > -       }
> > > > -
> > > >         if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > > >                             ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> >
> > The next line of context (not included in the patch):
> >
> >                pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> >
> > IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> > or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> > in general.  Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> > acpi_handle?  Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
> >
> > This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> > definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> > possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
> >
> > There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> > their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> > sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> > the second one like this:
> >
> > -              pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> > +              pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> > +                      path);
> 
> You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.
> 
> As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.

You're right, the changelog should include this information. I'll get an
updated version made. Thank you for getting back.

-Kelsey

[PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
 
 	adev->dep_unmet = 0;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
-		return;
-
 	status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
 					&dep_devices);
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
 
 	adev->dep_unmet = 0;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
-		return;
-
 	status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
 					&dep_devices);
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[skunberg.kelsey]

acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
call to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
 
 	adev->dep_unmet = 0;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
-		return;
-
 	status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
 					&dep_devices);
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
> does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
> acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
> call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
>
>         adev->dep_unmet = 0;
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
> -               return;
> -

As you can see, this just returns.

>         status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
>                                         &dep_devices);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {

Where this does something more on fallure.

Therefore the code after the change is not equivalent to the code
before it, so the changes is questionable.

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
> does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
> acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
> call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
>
>         adev->dep_unmet = 0;
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
> -               return;
> -

As you can see, this just returns.

>         status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
>                                         &dep_devices);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {

Where this does something more on fallure.

Therefore the code after the change is not equivalent to the code
before it, so the changes is questionable.

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c

[rafael]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an error if the DEP method
> does not exist. Checking if the DEP method exists before the
> acpi_evaluate_reference() call is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method()
> call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 0e28270b0fd8..4f2b0b481cee 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1803,9 +1803,6 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device *adev)
>
>         adev->dep_unmet = 0;
>
> -       if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
> -               return;
> -

As you can see, this just returns.

>         status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
>                                         &dep_devices);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {

Where this does something more on fallure.

Therefore the code after the change is not equivalent to the code
before it, so the changes is questionable.

[PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

The following acpi_has_method() calls are unnecessary since
acpi_execute_simple_method() and acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an
error if the given method does not exist. Remove acpi_has_method() calls
to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index 00f12a86ecbd..d831a61e0010 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -225,13 +225,9 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int mode)
 	if (!tz)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_SCP")) {
-		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "_SCP not present\n"));
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
+						    "_SCP", mode)))
 		return -ENODEV;
-	} else if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
-							   "_SCP", mode))) {
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -463,8 +459,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_trips_update(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int flag)
 			break;
 	}
 
-	if ((flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
-	    && acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_TZD")) {
+	if (flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES) {
 		memset(&devices, 0, sizeof(devices));
 		status = acpi_evaluate_reference(tz->device->handle, "_TZD",
 						NULL, &devices);
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

[Kelsey Skunberg]

The following acpi_has_method() calls are unnecessary since
acpi_execute_simple_method() and acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an
error if the given method does not exist. Remove acpi_has_method() calls
to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index 00f12a86ecbd..d831a61e0010 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -225,13 +225,9 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int mode)
 	if (!tz)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_SCP")) {
-		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "_SCP not present\n"));
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
+						    "_SCP", mode)))
 		return -ENODEV;
-	} else if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
-							   "_SCP", mode))) {
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -463,8 +459,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_trips_update(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int flag)
 			break;
 	}
 
-	if ((flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
-	    && acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_TZD")) {
+	if (flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES) {
 		memset(&devices, 0, sizeof(devices));
 		status = acpi_evaluate_reference(tz->device->handle, "_TZD",
 						NULL, &devices);
-- 
2.20.1

[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c

[skunberg.kelsey]

The following acpi_has_method() calls are unnecessary since
acpi_execute_simple_method() and acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an
error if the given method does not exist. Remove acpi_has_method() calls
to avoid additional work.

Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <skunberg.kelsey at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index 00f12a86ecbd..d831a61e0010 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -225,13 +225,9 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int mode)
 	if (!tz)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (!acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_SCP")) {
-		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "_SCP not present\n"));
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
+						    "_SCP", mode)))
 		return -ENODEV;
-	} else if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
-							   "_SCP", mode))) {
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -463,8 +459,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_trips_update(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int flag)
 			break;
 	}
 
-	if ((flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
-	    && acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_TZD")) {
+	if (flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES) {
 		memset(&devices, 0, sizeof(devices));
 		status = acpi_evaluate_reference(tz->device->handle, "_TZD",
 						NULL, &devices);
-- 
2.20.1