Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755110Ab3GJXtL (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:49:11 -0400 Received: from g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.44]:46464 "EHLO g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754698Ab3GJXtJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:49:09 -0400 Message-ID: <1373500106.24916.13.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications From: Toshi Kani To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML , Bjorn Helgaas , Yinghai Lu Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:48:26 -0600 In-Reply-To: <6189099.QeK4PsCIFb@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <2230821.QbNohsyO0O@vostro.rjw.lan> <1373398362.24916.4.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <19368029.jaCH7i2zvY@vostro.rjw.lan> <6189099.QeK4PsCIFb@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2956 Lines: 86 On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the > > > > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device > > > > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may > > > > just have been added). > > > > > > > > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run > > > > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type > > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Cc: 3.10+ > > > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > > > But, I think we need the additional patch below. > > > > Yes, I think you're right. > > That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in > the appended patch. That's fine by me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with device_attach(), which checks dev->driver inside the function? That said, I am OK with either way. Thanks, -Toshi > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > --- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them > > In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object > for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler > attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle > and the function should just return success immediately. Make > that happen. > > Reported-by: Toshi Kani > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac > if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device)) > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > + if (device->handler) > + return AE_OK; > + > ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); > if (ret) > return ret > 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/