Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] ACPI: use platform bus as the default bus for _HID enumeration

Zhang Rui
2014-03-10T02:45:03Z

On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 19:04 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:50:37 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 17:11 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > Because of the growing demand for enumerating ACPI devices to platform bus,
> > > this patch changes the code to enumerate ACPI devices with _HID/_CID to
> > > platform bus by default, unless the device already has a scan handler attached.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > > index dbfe49e..33376a9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > > @@ -22,24 +22,6 @@
> > >
> > > ACPI_MODULE_NAME("platform");
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * The following ACPI IDs are known to be suitable for representing as
> > > - * platform devices.
> > > - */
> > > -static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_platform_device_ids[] = {
> > > -
> > > - { "PNP0D40" },
> > > - { "ACPI0003" },
> > > - { "VPC2004" },
> > > - { "BCM4752" },
> > > -
> > > - /* Intel Smart Sound Technology */
> > > - { "INT33C8" },
> > > - { "80860F28" },
> > > -
> > > - { }
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > /**
> > > * acpi_create_platform_device - Create platform device for ACPI device node
> > > * @adev: ACPI device node to create a platform device for.
> > > @@ -125,13 +107,3 @@ int acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > > kfree(resources);
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > -static struct acpi_scan_handler platform_handler = {
> > > - .ids = acpi_platform_device_ids,
> > > - .attach = acpi_create_platform_device,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -void __init acpi_platform_init(void)
> > > -{
> > > - acpi_scan_add_handler(&platform_handler);
> > > -}
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > index 5967338..61af32e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > @@ -2022,14 +2022,15 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
> > > handler = acpi_scan_match_handler(hwid->id, &devid);
> > > if (handler) {
> > > ret = handler->attach(device, devid);
> > > - if (ret > 0) {
> > > + if (ret > 0)
> > > device->handler = handler;
> > > - break;
> > > - } else if (ret < 0) {
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto end;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +end:
> > > + if (!list_empty(&device->pnp.ids) && !device->handler)
> > > + acpi_create_platform_device(device, NULL);
> >
> > I just found a big problem in this proposal, which affects all the
> > optional scan handlers.
>
> What do you mean by "optional"? Such that can be compiled out?
>
yes.

> > The problem is that, if we disable a scan handler, platform device nodes
> > would be created instead by the code above, because there is no scan
> > handler attached for those ACPI nodes.
>
> If "we disable a scan handled" means "we compile it out", I'm not sure
> why creating platform devices for the device objects in question will
> be incorrect?
>
take lpss scan handler and 80860F0A device for example,
acpi_lpss_create_device() would invoke lpss_uart_setup() first and then
register 80860F0A as a platform device.
if the lpss scan handler is compiled out, we would do nothing but
register a platform device directly, thus the dw8250_platform_driver
driver is still loaded, but probably breaks.

IMO, we should either have a full functional platform device (if the
scan handler is compiled in) or nothing (if the scan handler is compiled
out).

thanks,
rui
> Rafael
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html