From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com (mail-ot1-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C362E18AEA for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722016561; cv=none; b=C+PWwhWO0N8kfKCpu5YVSkLycwVJW8udIkj3+1Q/RyWCiiG/5zl6ur1Bs1gsoRpRsIOEA9UFq3okyw3Pex9VSQW2BuTqInnrxoQ5r+UWS+p95I/xZCBQooIbQeHpDEBHBLlQIwhMFGJR53QbJJ+rn+Q+z0h0JSDDgQloWrPtcOs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722016561; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DqcOBh33ljlaLRitctg9JuRV8VvDI3UXWraIkBlH6mU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lGR0nhR0Dn667SE9T0+zukzozzidKR/u/5h4MbG61mVpcWO7sCCbk5YuWHHFNz9J9Fd9XOrtYMzGxlwJ+AEMM2SU43i1BU7syq4ttsK2AhhxHJ/P3sAc+kMNGihwp2zsiD8E0g+Dc8e20wWH1tDgqYNoKyskyeXezq/65pFVzU0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b=YAqW6iKm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ventanamicro.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ventanamicro.com header.i=@ventanamicro.com header.b="YAqW6iKm" Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-70365f905b6so931010a34.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ventanamicro.com; s=google; t=1722016559; x=1722621359; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VTQsnDD9dOQ9aXW3fhwk4CaUxvGpW17OCJzKJw9Ccdc=; b=YAqW6iKmGGOHLRq/E3ejXTM/GsgLtR6DuGHmbNYZ7YzlHb+jtAjPIOCcrh+1+OP8NR axlcFiAyrf6Ve3DaUsuYymcn7tvRMekQxzM/qb1A/COsQa7HaizGzTYLwOv0FjONQ01N j54alZp2VXtlQbS0YoiYyEhPPNwVukTHyxuV33o2Pr6giVDmJELgcJOEG0bE59GFhu4N Rzbma9SkZqZoZVPoGo7QI+EYJeTe1EqzyiHQj4YaKAFXYgPM+mf25pXXKXLKbqzpjVsb wTcKak2kBG1oVmYIbK98VXCU+m9vl4tjUxacJwVjGRWhrY71ryehPWv5+FmKVceEluaW kxuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1722016559; x=1722621359; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VTQsnDD9dOQ9aXW3fhwk4CaUxvGpW17OCJzKJw9Ccdc=; b=j7/fPox7OGnSl5DaxQBnaw8Q6f5VVLonZzzvQmJuMeLCGdlhbsdTplsWBD0A2Xcj1O A6ti6dInrurmGJ2ekOwErgSG1p5EUi8gi6SfQDA1AoOr5xeihei/BAJ96TGuMOhNq304 lNe8vYlBIrU4Ks/a11pdyHVXzz5X2D/SH8ZKzJWzWZJ8JE81NjwGYGup0qEfJnusYtb9 r6S3KsQqmxh4p/YhjSzIZgmueakOx7VI+BFxGHfvPWJS0umaPWLv9Au9lQ0b9pp6budK 3n6LPjAMIxm3Mw5FWk6PsMUuHeZzY1/Cd+fyxpnJnZdMVkLBzOnXTrlJqfXBbuFWUy34 K5sQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUfNGxRY8G81zklodcBLisOoRNZmK9lkXWS3jZVnLYYKi7B5nORnuiI/H8aCBVCS4fzktdUALFMKXEIkctrTwt2gWdzpFxMNf+Etw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzhyO30/BNtpu2oWKX1Ad3Mm7sT15y/2pcxc1yxljWSqoE4DOqI ZIaEReH4bPM1P7KV2aaS8eITPJ3Hx939o/ch8FZlclXO/01XAPYBMv3tVT4OrzM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHljkEgQv5ran0KLKmhGq/iyvIgPz7k7A6vSGQHnc+uRtB/kEThWLvH9PXh/6khJbW9A6aLjg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:6189:b0:704:47db:cd6d with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-70940c0892amr420224a34.1.1722016558854; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunil-laptop ([106.51.198.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 46e09a7af769-70930794a19sm839816a34.78.2024.07.26.10.55.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:25:51 +0530 From: Sunil V L To: Miao Wang Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: rename acpi_arm_init to acpi_arch_init Message-ID: References: <446b96d0-4b61-11ef-9239-3f7ac1938848@innull.com> 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-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 12:39:03AM +0800, Miao Wang wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > > 2024年7月27日 00:05，Sudeep Holla 写道： > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 11:03:01PM +0800, Miao Wang via B4 Relay wrote: > >> From: Miao Wang > >> > >> So that we avoid arch-specific code in general ACPI initialization flow. > >> Other architectures can also have chance to define their own > >> arch-specific acpi initialization process if necessary. > >> > > > > Nice, but I assume you are adding something similar to another arch(riscv > > or loongarch ?). It would be nice to have those changes as well together to > > make it easy to understand the intention much quicker. > > Yes, you are right about it. I'm trying to add some codes for loongarch, > after DSDT is loaded and namespace is created, before the devices are > enumerated, so I'll have chance to add a _DEP method to one of the device > using acpi_install_method to provide compatibility for some early loongarch > devices which are produced before the loongarch related ACPI standard is > finalized. > I have arch-specific initialization need for RISC-V as well. So, good to see this patch!. > > > >> Signed-off-by: Miao Wang > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 ++ > >> drivers/acpi/arm64/init.c | 2 +- > >> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 +- > >> include/linux/acpi.h | 6 +++--- > >> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > >> index a407f9cd549e..0d24e920e143 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > >> @@ -188,4 +188,6 @@ static inline void acpi_map_cpus_to_nodes(void) { } > >> > >> #define ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE_MAX_PHYS MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE > >> > >> +#define ACPI_HAVE_ARCH_INIT > >> + > > > > There is nothing core arm66 arch specific in acpi_arm_init() and hence it > > is in drivers/acpi/arm64. I would like to avoid adding anything in arch/arm64 > > if possible. Also I don't think we need to define this ACPI_HAVE_ARCH_INIT > > > >> #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/ > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/init.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/init.c > >> index d0c8aed90fd1..7a47d8095a7d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/init.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/init.c > >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ > >> #include > >> #include "init.h" > >> > >> -void __init acpi_arm_init(void) > >> +void __init acpi_arch_init(void) > > > > Keep the name acpi_arm_init as is. > > > >> { > >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_AGDI)) > >> acpi_agdi_init(); > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c > >> index 284bc2e03580..662f69e379ef 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c > >> @@ -1458,7 +1458,7 @@ static int __init acpi_init(void) > >> acpi_viot_early_init(); > >> acpi_hest_init(); > >> acpi_ghes_init(); > >> - acpi_arm_init(); > >> + acpi_arch_init(); > > > > Here we need acpi_arch_init() like you have changed. > > > >> acpi_scan_init(); > >> acpi_ec_init(); > >> acpi_debugfs_init(); > >> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h > >> index f0b95c76c707..3c3a83499c2d 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h > >> @@ -1517,10 +1517,10 @@ static inline int find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(unsigned int cpu) > >> } > >> #endif > >> > >> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 > >> -void acpi_arm_init(void); > >> +#ifdef ACPI_HAVE_ARCH_INIT > >> +void acpi_arch_init(void); > > > > This is bit inconsistent. The Makefile is still conditional on > > CONFIG_ARM64 while here you move to ACPI_HAVE_ARCH_INIT. > > So while not just undefine and redefine acpi_arch_init to acpi_arm_init. > > Something like this must work ? > > > > #define acpi_arch_init() do { }while(0) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 > > #undef acpi_arch_init > > #define acpi_arch_init() acpi_arm_init() > > #endif > > It will work. However I can see the pattern in other parts, where > the definition of a macro named HAVE_xxx is checked, and define an > inline static function with empty body if such macro is not defined > or define a function prototype with the same name otherwise, like > acpi_arch_set_root_pointer. I'm just trying to follow this pattern. > I was thinking to make it weak function similar to cpc_read_ffh(). Wouldn't it be better than ifdefery? Thanks Sunil