Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-143180-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240412143719.11398-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20240412143719.11398-3-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240412143719.11398-3-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:10:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0izN5naWY7sTi16whds9ubXkLpgqV2gePQs869BoJTCDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/18] ACPI: processor: Set the ACPI_COMPANION for the
 struct cpu instance
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, 
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>, 
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>, 
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linuxarm@huawei.com, justin.he@arm.com, 
	jianyong.wu@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> The arm64 specific arch_register_cpu() needs to access the _STA
> method of the DSDT object so make it available by assigning the
> appropriate handle to the struct cpu instance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.=
c
> index 7a0dd35d62c9..93e029403d05 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device=
 *device)
>         union acpi_object object =3D { 0 };
>         struct acpi_buffer buffer =3D { sizeof(union acpi_object), &objec=
t };
>         struct acpi_processor *pr =3D acpi_driver_data(device);
> +       struct cpu *c;
>         int device_declaration =3D 0;
>         acpi_status status =3D AE_OK;
>         static int cpu0_initialized;
> @@ -314,6 +315,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device=
 *device)
>                         cpufreq_add_device("acpi-cpufreq");
>         }
>
> +       c =3D &per_cpu(cpu_devices, pr->id);
> +       ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&c->dev, device);

This is also set for per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) in
acpi_processor_add(), via acpi_bind_one().

Moreover, there is some pr->id validation in acpi_processor_add(), so
it seems premature to use it here this way.

I think that ACPI_COMPANION_SET() should be called from here on
per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) after validating pr->id (so the
pr->id validation should all be done here) and then NULL can be passed
as acpi_dev to acpi_bind_one() in acpi_processor_add().  Then, there
will be one physical device corresponding to the processor ACPI device
and no confusion.

>         /*
>          *  Extra Processor objects may be enumerated on MP systems with
>          *  less than the max # of CPUs. They should be ignored _iff
> --
> 2.39.2
>