Re: [PATCH 3/4] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Pass struct device explicitly to ACPI mailbox parsers

["M K, Muralidhara" <muralimk@amd.com>]

On 6/29/2026 6:16 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2026, Muralidhara M K wrote:
> 
>> hsmp_read_acpi_crs() and hsmp_read_acpi_dsd() read the ACPI handle and
>> emit error messages via sock->dev.  Pass the struct device explicitly to
>> both helpers instead of reading it back from sock->dev.
>>
>> This is a pure refactor with no functional change; it prepares for
>> publishing sock->dev as the data-plane readiness gate only after the
>> socket has been fully initialized, so the parsers must not depend on
>> sock->dev already being set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Muralidhara M K <muralidhara.mk@amd.com>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/20260625123337.886435-5-muralidhara.mk@amd.com/T/#u [1]
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c
>> index 8c3185ae6395..f7fbba4c6b66 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/hsmp/acpi.c
>> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static acpi_status hsmp_resource(struct acpi_resource *res, void *data)
>>        return AE_OK;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>> +static int hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(struct hsmp_socket *sock, struct device *dev)
>>   {
>>        struct acpi_buffer buf = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
>>        union acpi_object *guid, *mailbox_package;
>> @@ -116,10 +116,10 @@ static int hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>>        int ret = 0;
>>        int j;
>>
>> -     status = acpi_evaluate_object_typed(ACPI_HANDLE(sock->dev), "_DSD", NULL,
>> +     status = acpi_evaluate_object_typed(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), "_DSD", NULL,
>>                                            &buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE);
>>        if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> -             dev_err(sock->dev, "Failed to read mailbox reg offsets from DSD table, err: %s\n",
>> +             dev_err(dev, "Failed to read mailbox reg offsets from DSD table, err: %s\n",
>>                        acpi_format_exception(status));
>>                return -ENODEV;
>>        }
>> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static int hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>>        guid = &dsd->package.elements[0];
>>        mailbox_package = &dsd->package.elements[1];
>>        if (!is_acpi_hsmp_uuid(guid) || mailbox_package->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) {
>> -             dev_err(sock->dev, "Invalid hsmp _DSD table data\n");
>> +             dev_err(dev, "Invalid hsmp _DSD table data\n");
>>                ret = -EINVAL;
>>                goto free_buf;
>>        }
>> @@ -192,14 +192,14 @@ static int hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>>        return ret;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int hsmp_read_acpi_crs(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>> +static int hsmp_read_acpi_crs(struct hsmp_socket *sock, struct device *dev)
>>   {
>>        acpi_status status;
>>
>> -     status = acpi_walk_resources(ACPI_HANDLE(sock->dev), METHOD_NAME__CRS,
>> +     status = acpi_walk_resources(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), METHOD_NAME__CRS,
>>                                     hsmp_resource, sock);
>>        if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> -             dev_err(sock->dev, "Failed to look up MP1 base address from CRS method, err: %s\n",
>> +             dev_err(dev, "Failed to look up MP1 base address from CRS method, err: %s\n",
>>                        acpi_format_exception(status));
>>                return -EINVAL;
>>        }
>> @@ -207,10 +207,10 @@ static int hsmp_read_acpi_crs(struct hsmp_socket *sock)
>>                return -EINVAL;
>>
>>        /* The mapped region should be un-cached */
>> -     sock->virt_base_addr = devm_ioremap_uc(sock->dev, sock->mbinfo.base_addr,
>> +     sock->virt_base_addr = devm_ioremap_uc(dev, sock->mbinfo.base_addr,
>>                                               sock->mbinfo.size);
>>        if (!sock->virt_base_addr) {
>> -             dev_err(sock->dev, "Failed to ioremap MP1 base address\n");
>> +             dev_err(dev, "Failed to ioremap MP1 base address\n");
>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>        }
>>
>> @@ -232,12 +232,12 @@ static int hsmp_parse_acpi_table(struct device *dev, u16 sock_ind)
>>        dev_set_drvdata(dev, sock);
>>
>>        /* Read MP1 base address from CRS method */
>> -     ret = hsmp_read_acpi_crs(sock);
>> +     ret = hsmp_read_acpi_crs(sock, dev);
>>        if (ret)
>>                return ret;
>>
>>        /* Read mailbox offsets from DSD table */
>> -     return hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(sock);
>> +     return hsmp_read_acpi_dsd(sock, dev);
> 
> It would probably make more sense to have the arguments other way around
> (dev, sock) in both of these calls as dev is "complete" and we're still
> filling sock at this point.
> 
Thanks I will fix this.

Ilpo, could you please confirm whether patches 0001 and 0002 have 
already been accepted in the maintainer branch, or if I should resubmit 
them as v2 along with patches 0003 and 0004 ?

> --
>   i.
>