Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp2053813pxb; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:51:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2pJoc3f5xVdb/VrczUH8qfD4QVTyzwVUdEzyuZzT3eWc60g89yDc/yobQOD2McIEbHjIG X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:489:: with SMTP id f9mr16510766eja.428.1615236690778; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:51:30 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1615236690; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LUmpegvVwdOutc/jiDuJvi8SzRz+d3ZdjBBqVJpMZcx7Mi0oq9sE00EaVa9FwSiST9 tjBLM4amXnz31E6Kgj60UaHZnd5cA2N9G02fvz3OBmoyIxcA96++qiv0vV8jCVn9npek HH+pMk2pEWrZHZg2+kQI1VKMZ8akk661mSvJIAYngCt1LVgjd3L8LBNH450Z2T7sSymk +j9TAKoJn4haU/ED5tOslZFKU19X4DnYhXXumS0xeLuw1DrNYTmFZpIAPBj3gVL8PeoI dXC4XlRhEiRu7+R4RMDk30V4a49jeyoXOxWFKKUZNA1+H97ifqCJym8xWsZN3KVA8QsY XFmQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-language:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject:dkim-signature; bh=u6BZPIdvgWtIEd689VvS5QtUOzKg7WXaBx7o4om4Ymc=; b=QfMpqTGA2tvqQsXkwg8BydZdt1dJ3qwLoFZdiYuHj9uMH562O0jpyZrYCrDLob4AEc 3PGqEyCZALz4cX/Y/hY4g2G/t9MxiiwcjuGCpTFCmBtOKgQIzNfLCwBH9LlslhuPXX4F qJbLyF/qjGVYhfTpUK05KoKGkafVvnoljClViEAjrUiFSWBVNgRfhFvnUJuN5lpcGvJv m69Dh4a7ULQLmLEbmVkOUs77oec5W8VJcN4XahLFfkxzhDnYAP8OUWFYtZ6W7MkhQowf fd1s6E8qRWNSXk/vqKDwB+ZFiH+fJIrsox0PcOYVR0Me+62H6LgSbefA1Zo8X1rCfKJK uf3w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=E8VIeiOp; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r18si8853586edi.229.2021.03.08.12.51.08; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=E8VIeiOp; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230457AbhCHUty (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:49:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55420 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229917AbhCHUtn (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:49:43 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19EDDC06174A; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id r10-20020a05600c35cab029010c946c95easo4624613wmq.4; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:49:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=u6BZPIdvgWtIEd689VvS5QtUOzKg7WXaBx7o4om4Ymc=; b=E8VIeiOpY9O4jeKN+/hmU8YFMSGRUwp2id5mjymFQa49+OkplP2mo3xIIok+8lDXA2 r99PiTax3vzFA5X3M8WVGwmmuyopeBcVwOt5sfvGYCkdn4e70b7vQ10bk+K92+BWnjdy Exv2JROEMEjwAr0/AJHyxvGDEeUe/4jthIDRqJSdRCIQDU8fdhq3K2BsWpQ1NlRj3Lrp 89ZW3Ql+bL+kUH9/zF1jaiKFlSSs8azNzvx9dKzbsPipUTPX9DAl0q/fZKPmzBqKgLpY q5TVg9txYqA+MzyOaWVEMWWtwb0udL+vL0xfROjeKfkKwSNHky3hrqbhZQZ+nWsgcgAz N58w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=u6BZPIdvgWtIEd689VvS5QtUOzKg7WXaBx7o4om4Ymc=; b=EBdTJZl3VkULD2noN+XLj1w4GPKlSKtkiId89i7k3fIbmUij/ImWQ5Y2VUZCx7iLid qeVu9ZSRTJ+mtofPyYZHmY8791mTbzRyqcpVb2pIV14O8lZS/UG3EbcJ9J21XTEGicqS MeirSP8+Iyfbi/IXlrJl3N44JLIWan9Bywd/yUzsZ8jP7xkpKbAcNcBWIiO1Mn5b71hT nnMIG5zW4LhpDnGdhry/27ZvOWBpxe47cf/wz+dh/wfIwjbKL73PkZKByi0eZQRSPBcU LbnV63wkVv+H86AXacdW2kk2VGGerVVrMcs6dgkJ8rVWqVpRcS8Q5iJl4zppfk+e/7Mw l0QQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338rj4BnbbD1KTIhM59MCW9k3JpDuwN7CfwAPd3hiTF5ARelPVn BS4ExM0LzqUryXXUsER6T2s= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cdef:: with SMTP id p15mr610310wmj.0.1615236581888; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.211] ([2.26.187.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a131sm640669wmc.48.2021.03.08.12.49.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:49:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ACPI: scan: Extend acpi_walk_dep_device_list() To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Tomasz Figa , Sakari Ailus , Rajmohan Mani , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Mika Westerberg , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Wolfram Sang , Lee Jones , Kieran Bingham , Laurent Pinchart , Hans de Goede , Mark Gross , Maximilian Luz , Robert Moore , Erik Kaneda , me@fabwu.ch, Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , linux-i2c , Platform Driver , "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" References: <20210222130735.1313443-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20210222130735.1313443-2-djrscally@gmail.com> <615bad5e-6e68-43c9-dd0b-f26d2832d52f@gmail.com> From: Daniel Scally Message-ID: <3138da4c-7e1b-d75e-b0a3-014bdc5147c1@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:49:40 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael On 08/03/2021 17:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:39 PM Andy Shevchenko >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM Daniel Scally wrote: >>>>>> On 22/02/2021 13:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally wrote: >>>>>>>> The acpi_walk_dep_device_list() is not as generalisable as its name >>>>>>>> implies, serving only to decrement the dependency count for each >>>>>>>> dependent device of the input. Extend the function to instead accept >>>>>>>> a callback which can be applied to all the dependencies in acpi_dep_list. >>>>>>>> Replace all existing calls to the function with calls to a wrapper, passing >>>>>>>> a callback that applies the same dependency reduction. >>>>>>> The code looks okay to me, if it was the initial idea, feel free to add >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko >>> ... >>> >>>>>>>> +void acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met(acpi_handle handle) >>>>>>> Since it's acpi_dev_* namespace, perhaps it should take struct acpi_device here? >>>>>> I can do this, but I avoided it because in most of the uses in the >>>>>> kernel currently there's no struct acpi_device, they're just passing >>>>>> ACPI_HANDLE(dev) instead, so I'd need to get the adev with >>>>>> ACPI_COMPANION() in each place. It didn't seem worth it... >>>> It may not even be possible sometimes, because that function may be >>>> called before creating all of the struct acpi_device objects (like in >>>> the case of deferred enumeration). >>>> >>>>>> but happy to >>>>>> do it if you'd prefer it that way? >>>>> I see, let Rafael decide then. I'm not pushing here. >>>> Well, it's a matter of correctness. >>> Looking at your above comment it is indeed. Thanks for clarification! >> Well, actually, the struct device for the object passed to this >> function should be there already, because otherwise it wouldn't make >> sense to update the list. So my comment above is not really >> applicable to this particular device and the function could take a >> struct acpi_device pointer argument. Sorry for the confusion. >> >>> But should we have acpi_dev_*() namespace for this function if it takes handle? >> It takes a device object handle. >> >> Anyway, as per the above, it can take a struct acpi_device pointer >> argument in which case the "acpi_dev_" prefix should be fine. OK, so the conclusion there is change the argument to a struct acpi_device pointer and update all the uses. >>> For time being nothing better than following comes to my mind: >>> >>> __acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => __acpi_flag_device_dependency_met() >>> acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() => acpi_flag_device_dependency_met() >> The above said, the name is somewhat confusing overall IMV. >> >> Something like acpi_dev_clear_dependencies() might be better. >> >> So lets make it something like >> >> void acpi_dev_clear_dependencies(struct acpi_device *supplier); > To be precise, there are two functions in the patch, > acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() which invokes > acpi_walk_dep_device_list() and __acpi_dev_flag_dependency_met() > invoked by the latter as a callback. > > Above I was talking about the first one. > > The callback should still take a struct acpi_dep_data pointer argument > and I would call it acpi_scan_clear_dep() or similar. OK, works for me, I'll make those changes - thanks