From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
Reported-by: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Daney <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/property.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/property.c b/drivers/acpi/property.c
index 7836e2e..237e3c5 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/property.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/property.c
@@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ int acpi_dev_prop_read_single(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *propname,
}
return ret;
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_prop_read_single);
static int acpi_copy_property_array_u8(const union acpi_object *items, u8 *val,
size_t nval)
--
1.7.11.7
On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>>
>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>>
>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko] undefined!
>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
>
> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
>
> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
>
> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API instead?
>
Yes, you are right. We should use:
int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
*propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
Regards,
Tomasz
On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>
> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>
> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
directly, although they aren't supposed to?
Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API instead?
> Reported-by: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Daney <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/property.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/property.c b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> index 7836e2e..237e3c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/property.c
> @@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ int acpi_dev_prop_read_single(struct acpi_device *adev, const char *propname,
> }
> return ret;
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_prop_read_single);
>
> static int acpi_copy_property_array_u8(const union acpi_object *items, u8 *val,
> size_t nval)
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>>>
>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
>>> undefined!
>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
>>
>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
>>
>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
>>
>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API instead?
>>
> Yes, you are right. We should use:
> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
>
Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
approach and see how it goes...
Thanks again,
David Daney
On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>>>>
>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
>>>> undefined!
>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
>>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
>>>
>>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
>>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
>>>
>>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
>>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
>>>
>>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
>>> instead?
>>>
>> Yes, you are right. We should use:
>> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
>> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
>>
>
> Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
> approach and see how it goes...
>
Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
acpi_dev_get_property_reference(), so there is no struct device *
available for a call to device_property_read_u64_array(). This looks
like a deficiency in the device_property_* framework, so for the time
being I guess we will call acpi_dev_get_property(), which is exported,
and decode the thing in the driver.
David Daney
On 08/05/2015 04:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote:
>> On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
>>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
>>>>>> undefined!
>>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
>>>>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
>>>>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
>>>>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
>>>>> instead?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are right. We should use:
>>>> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
>>>> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
>>> approach and see how it goes...
>>>
>>
>> Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
>>
>> We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
>> acpi_dev_get_property_reference(),
>
> Why?
Network device has a "phy-handle" (traversed with
acpi_dev_get_property_reference()), and we want to get some properties
of that phy.
I could turn the question around to you: Why export
acpi_dev_get_property_reference()? If there is a reason to export that,
then you should let people use the result.
>
>> so there is no struct device *
>> available for a call to device_property_read_u64_array(). This looks
>> like a deficiency in the device_property_* framework, so for the time
>> being I guess we will call acpi_dev_get_property(), which is exported,
>> and decode the thing in the driver.
>
> Please don't.
>
> I'd like to understand what's missing.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
> > On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
> >>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
> >>>>
> >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
> >>>> undefined!
> >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
> >>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
> >>>
> >>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
> >>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
> >>>
> >>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
> >>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
> >>>
> >>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
> >>> instead?
> >>>
> >> Yes, you are right. We should use:
> >> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
> >> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
> >>
> >
> > Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
> > approach and see how it goes...
> >
>
> Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
>
> We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
> acpi_dev_get_property_reference(),
Why?
> so there is no struct device *
> available for a call to device_property_read_u64_array(). This looks
> like a deficiency in the device_property_* framework, so for the time
> being I guess we will call acpi_dev_get_property(), which is exported,
> and decode the thing in the driver.
Please don't.
I'd like to understand what's missing.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Thursday, August 06, 2015 01:23:06 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote:
> > On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
> > > On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > >> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
> > >>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
> > >>>> undefined!
> > >>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
> > >>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
> > >>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
> > >>>
> > >>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
> > >>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
> > >>>
> > >>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
> > >>> instead?
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, you are right. We should use:
> > >> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
> > >> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
> > >>
> > >
> > > Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
> > > approach and see how it goes...
> > >
> >
> > Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
> >
> > We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
> > acpi_dev_get_property_reference(),
>
> Why?
>
> > so there is no struct device *
> > available for a call to device_property_read_u64_array(). This looks
> > like a deficiency in the device_property_* framework, so for the time
> > being I guess we will call acpi_dev_get_property(), which is exported,
> > and decode the thing in the driver.
>
> Please don't.
>
> I'd like to understand what's missing.
Moreover, even if you have no struct device, you still can use
fwnode_property_read_u64_array(), can't you?
Thanks,
Rafael
On 08/05/2015 04:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 04:17:21 PM David Daney wrote:
>> On 08/05/2015 04:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
>>>>> On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>>>> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
>>>>>>>> undefined!
>>>>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
>>>>>>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
>>>>>>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
>>>>>>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
>>>>>>> instead?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you are right. We should use:
>>>>>> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
>>>>>> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
>>>>> approach and see how it goes...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
>>>>
>>>> We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
>>>> acpi_dev_get_property_reference(),
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Network device has a "phy-handle" (traversed with
>> acpi_dev_get_property_reference()), and we want to get some properties
>> of that phy.
>>
>> I could turn the question around to you: Why export
>> acpi_dev_get_property_reference()? If there is a reason to export that,
>> then you should let people use the result.
>
> The GPIO core uses it and you *can* use the result (please see my other
> message).
It was somewhat of a rhetorical question.
I would actually like to do as you suggest, so I am looking at unwinding
the driver code to use the interfaces you suggest.
It is a multi-step process for me though. First I had to make the
existing code work. I now have it working, so next I will try to fix it.
>
> I wonder how does the ACPI table in question look like. Do you have
> an acpidump output from that system by any chance?
Not handy. I will be producing one soon though.
The good news is that I can change the firmware to make it correct if it
has problems.
Thanks for your patience,
David Daney
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 04:17:21 PM David Daney wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 04:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:14:49 PM David Daney wrote:
> >> On 08/05/2015 10:26 AM, David Daney wrote:
> >>> On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >>>> On 05.08.2015 15:48, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 04:01:59 PM David Daney wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes the following build error when building drivers as modules:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single" [drivers/net/phy/mdio-octeon.ko]
> >>>>>> undefined!
> >>>>>> ERROR: "acpi_dev_prop_read_single"
> >>>>>> [drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/thunder_bgx.ko] undefined!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you please tell me why the drivers in question use that function
> >>>>> directly, although they aren't supposed to?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly, their authors had not tried to build them as modules or they
> >>>>> would have noticed the problem at the development stage already.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What would be wrong with using the generic device properties API
> >>>>> instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, you are right. We should use:
> >>>> int device_property_read_u64_array(struct device *dev, const char
> >>>> *propname, u64 *val, size_t nval);
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks all, for the review and suggestions. We we try the suggested
> >>> approach and see how it goes...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually I don't think device_property_read_u64_array() will work.
> >>
> >> We are traversing a reference to a different acpi_device via
> >> acpi_dev_get_property_reference(),
> >
> > Why?
>
> Network device has a "phy-handle" (traversed with
> acpi_dev_get_property_reference()), and we want to get some properties
> of that phy.
>
> I could turn the question around to you: Why export
> acpi_dev_get_property_reference()? If there is a reason to export that,
> then you should let people use the result.
The GPIO core uses it and you *can* use the result (please see my other
message).
I wonder how does the ACPI table in question look like. Do you have
an acpidump output from that system by any chance?
Thanks,
Rafael