Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-154789-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240418135412.14730-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
 <20240418135412.14730-4-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <c13f7424-3a7f-4c3e-3e8d-81e9fcf0caf7@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <c13f7424-3a7f-4c3e-3e8d-81e9fcf0caf7@huawei.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:31:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gDJzCTkUP3i8H3pivrCHdU4-qVf3SVCvTF9hQyKJHtBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/16] ACPI: processor: Drop duplicated check on _STA
 (enabled + present)
To: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, linuxarm@huawei.com, justin.he@arm.com, 
	jianyong.wu@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:49=E2=80=AFAM Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> w=
rote:
>
> On 2024/4/18 21:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > The ACPI bus scan will only result in acpi_processor_add() being called
> > if _STA has already been checked and the result is that the
> > processor is enabled and present.  Hence drop this additional check.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> >
> > ---
> > v7: No change
> > v6: New patch to drop this unnecessary code. Now I think we only
> >      need to explicitly read STA to print a warning in the ARM64
> >      arch_unregister_cpu() path where we want to know if the
> >      present bit has been unset as well.
> > ---
> >   drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 6 ------
> >   1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processo=
r.c
> > index 7fc924aeeed0..ba0a6f0ac841 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > @@ -186,17 +186,11 @@ static void __init acpi_pcc_cpufreq_init(void) {}
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >   static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >   {
> > -     unsigned long long sta;
> > -     acpi_status status;
> >       int ret;
> >
> >       if (invalid_phys_cpuid(pr->phys_id))
> >               return -ENODEV;
> >
> > -     status =3D acpi_evaluate_integer(pr->handle, "_STA", NULL, &sta);
> > -     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !(sta & ACPI_STA_DEVICE_PRESENT))
> > -             return -ENODEV;
> > -
> >       cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >       cpus_write_lock();
>
> Since the status bits were checked before acpi_processor_add() being
> called, do we need to remove the if (!acpi_device_is_enabled(device))
> check in acpi_processor_add() as well?

No, because its caller only checks the present bit.  The function
itself checks the enabled bit.