From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6063F37F304 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788210852; cv=none; b=V/td55SKcguyX7HSwqTlIePSdadlMJgOFMw/a5RsL5y48JWJuXtlB/WCFhixb45tmW1M7i9nzi8hmL5y3rLVyrw8Qqrl/YVHhEcDVAgmD8mxiFTuL3qVdagT9D3Lc8CSpQVIv/AkqseG8daLYO5JXk65kIymVvcjtkE7Zre5+mQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788210852; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1QlQECTAseObBIusJW9ebnpc9lQuSF9jdxI7MtnOVg8=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=jprqbz0kuuKCN/1LlPPXU/7S5QoFkZKMSICJpO6A318mPsD+MpYszby5i0+j/7jyiMGhFzzMMR58/RpDLXssAetdknsTmZH/KFkw307Idn9rFszeb0zI0XPk2xPD2s1/Ipuo1k4AcscQEXIvaUEADhfhLAyi764vyG/KekJ+FeY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Ecw9b+HS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Ecw9b+HS" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4B3E1F00A3D; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:14:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788210850; bh=6Abo0en1qajQT1UOv5NoM395d076OvOw+6hHG1Ab7fk=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=Ecw9b+HS5BgDkH3RrAHkGRDigjoFw4L/m7ZLgB0INC8Sv+d9PfWTPQqP5HPT96vQn UdZMqJPDC0yCEZw3RQZ9cWDVVhXDC55K6wFa6GLd6eWVcrMz8RIhlKBBbLCo7YPnv5 cSgDkjUG1PQfS5bCh8HQG/QZ0mf8NQ1x/M4s+qEGbnILs3dihw9plUnWzqtMPbCjXI S+2wfb7XH6z1c992Zl4T183hBxha3W8/pGXun7toRhN2q1YlQrpDICD3GZ54Fqee+C yuL5+hokc9y8ZLU/iPqZG3Wfp/G3bHu7BYQWOd5RYdFNIBtdwx5sMty7npbuyzdZfd R1tDtNF/g+jnQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] ACPI: scan: Add ACPI device "enumerated" marker Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <48339705.fMDQidcC6G@rafael.j.wysocki> References: <3435655.aeNJFYEL58@rafael.j.wysocki> <48339705.fMDQidcC6G@rafael.j.wysocki> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 21:14:10 +0000 Message-Id: <20260831211410.B4B3E1F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" >=20 > Currently, the "visited" flag of ACPI device objects has two roles. > One of them is to indicate that the given ACPI device object has been > enumerated, which basically means that either it has been associated > with a "physical" device representation, or there is no matching > "physical" device representation for it. The other one is to > indicate that acpi_bus_attach() has processed the device. That dual > purpose leads to some confusion regarding when that flag should be set > and cleared and by whom. >=20 > To address that confusion, add a new bool field called "enumerated" > to struct acpi_device for the purpose of indicating whether or not > the given ACPI device object has been enumerated. Accordingly, switch > over acpi_device_enumerated() and acpi_device_set/clear_enumerated() to > [ ... ] >=20 > This allows a couple of checks to be dropped from acpi_bus_attach() > and its first_pass argument is not needed any more. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/3435655.aeNJFYEL58@= rafael.j.wysocki?part=3D5