Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
From:   guojinhui <guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com>
To:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com, lenb@kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lizefan.x@bytedance.com, rafael@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: platform: set numa_node before platform_add_device()
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:02:16 +0800
Message-Id: <20230913030216.2442-1-guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <2023091258-matrix-imitation-cc70@gregkh>
References: <2023091258-matrix-imitation-cc70@gregkh>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:09:00PM +0800, guojinhui.liam wrote:
> > platform_add_device creates numa_node attribute of sysfs according to
> > whether dev_to_node(dev) is equal to NUMA_NO_NODE. So set the numa node
> > of the device before creating numa_node attribute of sysfs.
>
> Why?  What will this allow to happen differently?  What is broken with
> the current code?

Commit 4a60406d3592 can run well with dtb, because of_device_add() set the numa_node before device_add().
I think it didn't test acpi before submitting.

> > Fixes: 4a60406d3592 ("driver core: platform: expose numa_node to users in sysfs")
> > Signed-off-by: guojinhui.liam <guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com>
>
> Please use your name here, and not your email alias, as the first part
> of the signed-off-by line.
>
> And also, please fix up your email client to have the correct name as
> well.

I will fix them with a new patch v2.

> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 4 +---
> >  drivers/base/platform.c      | 4 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > index 48d15dd785f6..adcbfbdc343f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> > @@ -178,11 +178,9 @@ struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >  	if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> >  		dev_err(&adev->dev, "platform device creation failed: %ld\n",
> >  			PTR_ERR(pdev));
> > -	else {
> > -		set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
> > +	else
> >  		dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "created platform device %s\n",
> >  			dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	kfree(resources);
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index 76bfcba25003..355abf91930a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
> >  {
> >  	int ret;
> >  	struct platform_device *pdev;
> > +	struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device_node(pdevinfo->fwnode);
> >  
> >  	pdev = platform_device_alloc(pdevinfo->name, pdevinfo->id);
> >  	if (!pdev)
> > @@ -841,6 +842,9 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
> >  			goto err;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (adev)
> > +		set_dev_node(&pdev->dev, acpi_get_node(adev->handle));
>
> Are you sure that this platform code can always call acpi functions?

Thanks for your review, there are something wrong without enabling CONFIG_ACPI.
I will fix it with patch v2 soon.

thanks,

guojinhui