Remove acpi_has_method() calls which return an error a following call will
provide anyways. Removing the unnecessary acpi_has_method() calls help to
clean up code and remove extra work.
Kelsey Skunberg (3):
ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from acpi_adxl.c
ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() call from scan.c
ACPI: Remove acpi_has_method() calls from thermal.c
drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 ---
drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 11 +++--------
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--
2.20.1
acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
@@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
return -ENODEV;
}
- if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
- pr_info("No DSM method\n");
- return -ENODEV;
- }
-
if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
--
2.20.1
The following acpi_has_method() calls are unnecessary since
acpi_execute_simple_method() and acpi_evaluate_reference() will return an
error if the given method does not exist. Remove acpi_has_method() calls
to avoid additional work.
Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 11 +++--------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index 00f12a86ecbd..d831a61e0010 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -225,13 +225,9 @@ static int acpi_thermal_set_cooling_mode(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int mode)
if (!tz)
return -EINVAL;
- if (!acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_SCP")) {
- ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "_SCP not present\n"));
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
+ "_SCP", mode)))
return -ENODEV;
- } else if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_execute_simple_method(tz->device->handle,
- "_SCP", mode))) {
- return -ENODEV;
- }
return 0;
}
@@ -463,8 +459,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_trips_update(struct acpi_thermal *tz, int flag)
break;
}
- if ((flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES)
- && acpi_has_method(tz->device->handle, "_TZD")) {
+ if (flag & ACPI_TRIPS_DEVICES) {
memset(&devices, 0, sizeof(devices));
status = acpi_evaluate_reference(tz->device->handle, "_TZD",
NULL, &devices);
--
2.20.1
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> - if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> - pr_info("No DSM method\n");
And why is printing the message not useful?
> - return -ENODEV;
> - }
> -
> if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
[+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > - pr_info("No DSM method\n");
>
> And why is printing the message not useful?
>
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > - }
> > -
> > if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
The next line of context (not included in the patch):
pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
in general. Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
acpi_handle? Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
the second one like this:
- pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
+ pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
+ path);
Sorry for the delayed reply.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > - pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> >
> > And why is printing the message not useful?
> >
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > > ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > > ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
>
> The next line of context (not included in the patch):
>
> pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
>
> IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> in general. Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> acpi_handle? Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
>
> This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
>
> There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> the second one like this:
>
> - pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> + pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> + path);
You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.
As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:08:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed reply.
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [+cc Tony (original author), Borislav (merged original patch)]
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:31:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:36 AM Kelsey Skunberg
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > acpi_check_dsm() will already return an error if the DSM method does not
> > > > exist. Checking if the DSM method exists before the acpi_check_dsm() call
> > > > is not needed. Remove acpi_has_method() call to avoid additional work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kelsey Skunberg <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c | 5 -----
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > index 13c8f7b50c46..89aac15663fd 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_adxl.c
> > > > @@ -148,11 +148,6 @@ static int __init adxl_init(void)
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DSM")) {
> > > > - pr_info("No DSM method\n");
> > >
> > > And why is printing the message not useful?
> > >
> > > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &adxl_guid, ADXL_REVISION,
> > > > ADXL_IDX_GET_ADDR_PARAMS |
> > > > ADXL_IDX_FORWARD_TRANSLATE)) {
> >
> > The next line of context (not included in the patch):
> >
> > pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> >
> > IMHO kernel messages that are just a constant string, with no context
> > or variable part (device ID, path, error code, etc) are questionable
> > in general. Is there any dev_printk()-like thing that takes an
> > acpi_handle? Seems like that would be useful for cases like this.
> >
> > This message *does* include an "ADXL: " prefix (from the pr_fmt
> > definition), and from reading the code you can see that the only
> > possible method is "\_SB.ADXL._DSM".
> >
> > There's nothing an end user can do with these messages, so I suspect
> > their value is for debugging during platform bringup, and it would be
> > sufficient to drop the first one (as Kelsey's patch does) and change
> > the second one like this:
> >
> > - pr_info("DSM method does not support forward translate\n");
> > + pr_info("%s DSM missing or does not support forward translate\n",
> > + path);
>
> You have a point, but then I would expect the changelog to mention that.
>
> As it stands, the patch does more than the changelog says, which isn't nice.
You're right, the changelog should include this information. I'll get an
updated version made. Thank you for getting back.
-Kelsey