From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (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 C509529414; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713196142; cv=none; b=l1fSsgS5rAX9GAlXXnwc0mSgijcTiiLMfbnrOYVxszzwt7UmaoDZjd2JsnGyx1M5eW1T9irl88sOrRiVzJtpJV43I9ou9PAVyK8nj1aGOtCg7uZyFE2B+yDxCjEhB+w4w2gP7gWyQMOoBu7QgSwarhEaZd0/bsE7yv+bYeGmLoM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713196142; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vckgdI60nnlCSg5BIZOilFflwMtdNqSLeCq6LHe17G4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GqiukTx+uV917eXhw9N1i0RErGxbTY2SzKuHuBncCu99aqJ0j79tocp1PRnmwgDpfcikD6pUG4wq1zbeZyLnYsOnurwBKxJso+CbyiZiq9Kr/nq4vFoZ321Q6Cg9Z8P1+9bXjOIMv7RCN41LHb3VbycMi8HoEIJpfkyULlKCKcc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VJBPK5lr5z6D8gk; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:47:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D426140CF4; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 23:48:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:48:55 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:48:54 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: , , , , , , , , Russell King , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , "Jean-Philippe Brucker" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/18] ACPI: processor: Set the ACPI_COMPANION for the struct cpu instance Message-ID: <20240415164854.0000264f@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240412143719.11398-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20240412143719.11398-3-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.183) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:10:54 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron > wrote: > > > > The arm64 specific arch_register_cpu() needs to access the _STA > > method of the DSDT object so make it available by assigning the > > appropriate handle to the struct cpu instance. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron > > --- > > drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processo= r.c > > index 7a0dd35d62c9..93e029403d05 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > > @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_devi= ce *device) > > union acpi_object object =3D { 0 }; > > struct acpi_buffer buffer =3D { sizeof(union acpi_object), &obj= ect }; > > struct acpi_processor *pr =3D acpi_driver_data(device); > > + struct cpu *c; > > int device_declaration =3D 0; > > acpi_status status =3D AE_OK; > > static int cpu0_initialized; > > @@ -314,6 +315,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_devi= ce *device) > > cpufreq_add_device("acpi-cpufreq"); > > } > > > > + c =3D &per_cpu(cpu_devices, pr->id); > > + ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&c->dev, device); =20 >=20 > This is also set for per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) in > acpi_processor_add(), via acpi_bind_one(). Hi Rafael, cpu_sys_devices gets filled with a pointer to this same structure. The contents gets set in register_cpu() so at this point it doesn't point anywhere. As a side note register_cpu() memsets to zero the value I set it to in the code above which isn't great, particularly as I want to use this in post_eject for arm64. We could make a copy of the handle and put it back after the memset in register_cpu() but that is also ugly. It's the best I've come up with to make sure this is still set come remove time but is rather odd. >=20 > Moreover, there is some pr->id validation in acpi_processor_add(), so > it seems premature to use it here this way. >=20 > I think that ACPI_COMPANION_SET() should be called from here on > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) after validating pr->id (so the > pr->id validation should all be done here) and then NULL can be passed > as acpi_dev to acpi_bind_one() in acpi_processor_add(). Then, there > will be one physical device corresponding to the processor ACPI device > and no confusion. I'm fairly sure this is pointing to the same device but agreed this is a tiny bit confusing. However we can't use cpu_sys_devices at this point so I'm not immediately seeing a cleaner solution :( Jonathan >=20 > > /* > > * Extra Processor objects may be enumerated on MP systems with > > * less than the max # of CPUs. They should be ignored _iff > > -- > > 2.39.2 > > =20