Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Nikolaus Voss <nv@vosn.de>
To:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
cc:     "Schmauss, Erik" <erik.schmauss@intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ferry Toth <fntoth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Introduce acpi_load_table_with_index()
In-Reply-To: <20190924120843.GU2680@smile.fi.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1909251218520.65328@fox.voss.local>
References: <6851700.HULMXZj6Ep@kreacher> <20190923094701.24950-1-nikolaus.voss@loewensteinmedical.de> <20190924120734.GT2680@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190924120843.GU2680@smile.fi.intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 03:07:34PM +0300, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:47:01AM +0200, Nikolaus Voss wrote:
>>> For unloading an ACPI table, it is necessary to provide the
>>> index of the table. The method intended for dynamically
>>> loading or hotplug addition of tables, acpi_load_table(),
>>> does not provide this information, so a new function
>>> acpi_load_table_with_index() with the same functionality,
>>> but an optional pointer to the loaded table index is introduced.
>>>
>>> The new function is used in the acpi_configfs driver to save the
>>> index of the newly loaded table in order to unload it later.
>>
>> I'll test it later, though couple of remarks:
>> - would it make sense to provide a counter part helper for unloading? Now it
>>   looks a bit inconsistent in configfs when we use acpi_load_*() vs.
>>   acpi_tb_*() in remove.

Yes, IMO it would make sense, but it is an ACPICA API change. Bob, what's 
your opinion?

>
> ...and I think we may unexport acpi_tb_* in this case as Bob suggested for it
> to be internal API.

see above.

>
>> - please, include Ferry into Cc (as done in this mail)
>