[PATCH] acpi: remove dead code

[PATCH] acpi: remove dead code

[Stephen Hemminger]

Found by running make namespacecheck on linux-next

Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>

--- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c	2010-10-06 13:42:58.722974685 +0900
+++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c	2010-10-06 13:45:23.322689618 +0900
@@ -780,16 +780,6 @@ void acpi_os_wait_events_complete(void *
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_os_wait_events_complete);
 
 /*
- * Allocate the memory for a spinlock and initialize it.
- */
-acpi_status acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock * handle)
-{
-	spin_lock_init(*handle);
-
-	return AE_OK;
-}
-
-/*
  * Deallocate the memory for a spinlock.
  */
 void acpi_os_delete_lock(acpi_spinlock handle)
@@ -1152,21 +1142,6 @@ int acpi_check_region(resource_size_t st
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_check_region);
 
-int acpi_check_mem_region(resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
-		      const char *name)
-{
-	struct resource res = {
-		.start = start,
-		.end   = start + n - 1,
-		.name  = name,
-		.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
-	};
-
-	return acpi_check_resource_conflict(&res);
-
-}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_check_mem_region);
-
 /*
  * Let drivers know whether the resource checks are effective
  */
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2010-10-06 13:46:52.594978592 +0900
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2010-10-06 13:46:55.817980993 +0900
@@ -899,6 +899,4 @@ static void __exit acpi_processor_exit(v
 module_init(acpi_processor_init);
 module_exit(acpi_processor_exit);
 
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit);
-
 MODULE_ALIAS("processor");
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c	2010-10-06 13:47:23.469979232 +0900
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c	2010-10-06 13:47:29.141997316 +0900
@@ -238,113 +238,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease
 
 #endif
 
-int acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit(acpi_handle handle, int type)
-{
-	int result = 0;
-	struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
-	struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
-	int tx = 0, max_tx_px = 0;
-
-
-	if ((type < ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_NONE)
-	    || (type > ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_DECREMENT))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	result = acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device);
-	if (result)
-		return result;
-
-	pr = acpi_driver_data(device);
-	if (!pr)
-		return -ENODEV;
-
-	/* Thermal limits are always relative to the current Px/Tx state. */
-	if (pr->flags.throttling)
-		pr->limit.thermal.tx = pr->throttling.state;
-
-	/*
-	 * Our default policy is to only use throttling at the lowest
-	 * performance state.
-	 */
-
-	tx = pr->limit.thermal.tx;
-
-	switch (type) {
-
-	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_NONE:
-		do {
-			result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
-		} while (!result);
-		tx = 0;
-		break;
-
-	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_INCREMENT:
-		/* if going up: P-states first, T-states later */
-
-		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(pr->id);
-		if (!result)
-			goto end;
-		else if (result == -ERANGE)
-			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
-					  "At maximum performance state\n"));
-
-		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
-			if (tx == (pr->throttling.state_count - 1))
-				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
-						  "At maximum throttling state\n"));
-			else
-				tx++;
-		}
-		break;
-
-	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_DECREMENT:
-		/* if going down: T-states first, P-states later */
-
-		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
-			if (tx == 0) {
-				max_tx_px = 1;
-				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
-						  "At minimum throttling state\n"));
-			} else {
-				tx--;
-				goto end;
-			}
-		}
-
-		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
-		if (result) {
-			/*
-			 * We only could get -ERANGE, 1 or 0.
-			 * In the first two cases we reached max freq again.
-			 */
-			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
-					  "At minimum performance state\n"));
-			max_tx_px = 1;
-		} else
-			max_tx_px = 0;
-
-		break;
-	}
-
-      end:
-	if (pr->flags.throttling) {
-		pr->limit.thermal.px = 0;
-		pr->limit.thermal.tx = tx;
-
-		result = acpi_processor_apply_limit(pr);
-		if (result)
-			printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "Unable to set thermal limit\n");
-
-		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Thermal limit now (P%d:T%d)\n",
-				  pr->limit.thermal.px, pr->limit.thermal.tx));
-	} else
-		result = 0;
-	if (max_tx_px)
-		return 1;
-	else
-		return result;
-}
-
 int acpi_processor_get_limit_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
 {
 
--- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h	2010-10-06 13:47:54.590004475 +0900
+++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h	2010-10-06 13:47:59.250377356 +0900
@@ -115,8 +115,6 @@ void pci_acpi_crs_quirks(void);
 #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_INCREMENT	0x01
 #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_DECREMENT	0x02
 
-int acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit(acpi_handle handle, int type);
-
 /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Dock Station
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
--- a/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h	2010-10-06 13:44:29.943008303 +0900
+++ b/include/acpi/acpiosxf.h	2010-10-06 13:44:36.262095467 +0900
@@ -98,8 +98,6 @@ acpi_os_table_override(struct acpi_table
 /*
  * Spinlock primitives
  */
-acpi_status acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock * out_handle);
-
 void acpi_os_delete_lock(acpi_spinlock handle);
 
 acpi_cpu_flags acpi_os_acquire_lock(acpi_spinlock handle);
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h	2010-10-06 13:42:58.734970973 +0900
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h	2010-10-06 13:45:25.793973981 +0900
@@ -245,8 +245,6 @@ int acpi_check_resource_conflict(const s
 
 int acpi_check_region(resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
 		      const char *name);
-int acpi_check_mem_region(resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
-		      const char *name);
 
 int acpi_resources_are_enforced(void);
 
@@ -344,12 +342,6 @@ static inline int acpi_check_region(reso
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static inline int acpi_check_mem_region(resource_size_t start,
-					resource_size_t n, const char *name)
-{
-	return 0;
-}
-
 struct acpi_table_header;
 static inline int acpi_table_parse(char *id,
 				int (*handler)(struct acpi_table_header *))

Re: [PATCH] acpi: remove dead code

[Len Brown]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> Found by running make namespacecheck on linux-next
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
> 
> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c	2010-10-06 13:42:58.722974685 +0900
...
>  /*
> - * Allocate the memory for a spinlock and initialize it.
> - */
> -acpi_status acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock * handle)
> -{
> -	spin_lock_init(*handle);
> -
> -	return AE_OK;
> -}

ACPICA declares acpi_os_create_lock in acpiosxf.h,
but never calls it.  Bob, can we do away with it?

...
> -int acpi_check_mem_region(resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
> -		      const char *name)
> -{
> -	struct resource res = {
> -		.start = start,
> -		.end   = start + n - 1,
> -		.name  = name,
> -		.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
> -	};
> -
> -	return acpi_check_resource_conflict(&res);
> -
> -}
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_check_mem_region);

acpi_check_mem_region seems to be entirely
a Linux thing.  It is exported to modules -- though
see any that use it.

> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2010-10-06 13:46:52.594978592 +0900
...
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit);
...
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c	2010-10-06 13:47:23.469979232 +0900
...
> -int acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit(acpi_handle handle, int type)
> -{

although acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit() is exported to modules
I don't see any users in recent history.


thanks,
-Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [PATCH] acpi: remove dead code

[Lin Ming]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>> Found by running make namespacecheck on linux-next
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
>>
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c      2010-10-06 13:42:58.722974685 +0900
> ...
>>  /*
>> - * Allocate the memory for a spinlock and initialize it.
>> - */
>> -acpi_status acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock * handle)
>> -{
>> -     spin_lock_init(*handle);
>> -
>> -     return AE_OK;
>> -}
>
> ACPICA declares acpi_os_create_lock in acpiosxf.h,
> but never calls it.  Bob, can we do away with it?

In ACPICA code (AcpiUtMutexInitialize),

    Status = AcpiOsCreateLock (&AcpiGbl_GpeLock);
    if (ACPI_FAILURE (Status))
    {
        return_ACPI_STATUS (Status);
    }

    Status = AcpiOsCreateLock (&AcpiGbl_HardwareLock);
    if (ACPI_FAILURE (Status))
    {
        return_ACPI_STATUS (Status);
    }

In Linux code (acpi_ut_mutex_initialize)

        spin_lock_init(acpi_gbl_gpe_lock);
        spin_lock_init(acpi_gbl_hardware_lock);

This is another divergence between ACPICA and Linux code.

Lin Ming
--
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

Re: [PATCH] acpi: remove dead code

[Len Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1526 bytes --]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Lin Ming wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> >> Found by running make namespacecheck on linux-next
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
> >>
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c      2010-10-06 13:42:58.722974685 +0900
> > ...
> >>  /*
> >> - * Allocate the memory for a spinlock and initialize it.
> >> - */
> >> -acpi_status acpi_os_create_lock(acpi_spinlock * handle)
> >> -{
> >> -     spin_lock_init(*handle);
> >> -
> >> -     return AE_OK;
> >> -}
> >
> > ACPICA declares acpi_os_create_lock in acpiosxf.h,
> > but never calls it.  Bob, can we do away with it?
> 
> In ACPICA code (AcpiUtMutexInitialize),
> 
>     Status = AcpiOsCreateLock (&AcpiGbl_GpeLock);
>     if (ACPI_FAILURE (Status))
>     {
>         return_ACPI_STATUS (Status);
>     }
> 
>     Status = AcpiOsCreateLock (&AcpiGbl_HardwareLock);
>     if (ACPI_FAILURE (Status))
>     {
>         return_ACPI_STATUS (Status);
>     }
> 
> In Linux code (acpi_ut_mutex_initialize)
> 
>         spin_lock_init(acpi_gbl_gpe_lock);
>         spin_lock_init(acpi_gbl_hardware_lock);
> 
> This is another divergence between ACPICA and Linux code.

Lin-Ming,

Thanks for the explanation.

I've applied Stephen's patch, since it is correct.
If you later want to send me patches to reduce the divergence
between ACPICA and Linux/ACPICA, I'll be happy to accept them.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center