From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: processor: check for synthetic _HID, default to "Device" declaration
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:33:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090427223341.16549.57263.stgit@bob.kio> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090427223244.16549.99553.stgit@bob.kio>
This patch inverts the logic that distinguishes "Processor" statements
from "Device" statements, so we now check explicitly for "Processor" and
default to "Device". This removes the only real use of ACPI_PROCESSOR_HID,
so we can then remove the #define. It also has the theoretical advantage
that if a new processor _HID were ever added, we wouldn't have to change
the code here.
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
index 45ad328..cf627d6 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
@@ -596,7 +596,21 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
"No bus mastering arbitration control\n"));
- if (!strcmp(acpi_device_hid(device), ACPI_PROCESSOR_HID)) {
+ if (!strcmp(acpi_device_hid(device), ACPI_PROCESSOR_OBJECT_HID)) {
+ /* Declared with "Processor" statement; match ProcessorID */
+ status = acpi_evaluate_object(pr->handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "Evaluating processor object\n");
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * TBD: Synch processor ID (via LAPIC/LSAPIC structures) on SMP.
+ * >>> 'acpi_get_processor_id(acpi_id, &id)' in
+ * arch/xxx/acpi.c
+ */
+ pr->acpi_id = object.processor.proc_id;
+ } else {
/*
* Declared with "Device" statement; match _UID.
* Note that we don't handle string _UIDs yet.
@@ -611,20 +625,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
}
device_declaration = 1;
pr->acpi_id = value;
- } else {
- /* Declared with "Processor" statement; match ProcessorID */
- status = acpi_evaluate_object(pr->handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
- if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
- printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "Evaluating processor object\n");
- return -ENODEV;
- }
-
- /*
- * TBD: Synch processor ID (via LAPIC/LSAPIC structures) on SMP.
- * >>> 'acpi_get_processor_id(acpi_id, &id)' in
- * arch/xxx/acpi.c
- */
- pr->acpi_id = object.processor.proc_id;
}
cpu_index = get_cpu_id(pr->handle, device_declaration, pr->acpi_id);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-27 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-27 22:33 [PATCH 0/3] ACPI processor _HID cleanups Bjorn Helgaas
2009-04-27 22:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: use LNXCPU, not ACPI_CPU, for Linux-specific processor _HID Bjorn Helgaas
2009-04-27 22:33 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2009-04-27 22:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: processor: move device _HID into driver Bjorn Helgaas
2009-05-28 1:14 ` [PATCH 0/3] ACPI processor _HID cleanups Len Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090427223341.16549.57263.stgit@bob.kio \
--to=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox