Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:35:10AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Accept any cxl_test topology device as the first argument in
> > cxl_chbs_context. This is in preparation for reworking the detection of
> > the component registers across VH and RCH topologies. Move
> > mock_acpi_table_parse_cedt() beneath the definition of is_mock_port()
> > and use is_mock_port() instead of the explicit mock cxl_acpi device
> > check.
>
> I'll ACK this change, alhtough I don't appreciate the code move and modify
> in the same patch. It hides the diff.
That's fair. I'll go ahead and just forward declare is_mock_port() which
makes the diff easier to read:
@@ -320,10 +320,12 @@ static int populate_cedt(void)
return 0;
}
+static bool is_mock_port(struct device *dev);
+
/*
- * WARNING, this hack assumes the format of 'struct
- * cxl_cfmws_context' and 'struct cxl_chbs_context' share the property that
- * the first struct member is the device being probed by the cxl_acpi
+ * WARNING, this hack assumes the format of 'struct cxl_cfmws_context'
+ * and 'struct cxl_chbs_context' share the property that the first
+ * struct member is cxl_test device being probed by the cxl_acpi
* driver.
*/
struct cxl_cedt_context {
@@ -340,7 +342,7 @@ static int mock_acpi_table_parse_cedt(enum acpi_cedt_type
id,
unsigned long end;
int i;
- if (dev != &cxl_acpi->dev)
+ if (!is_mock_port(dev) && !is_mock_dev(dev))
return acpi_table_parse_cedt(id, handler_arg, arg);
if (id == ACPI_CEDT_TYPE_CHBS)
> The commit msg seems needlessly vague. Why not state what was done?
> Something like: 'Accept any topology device in cxl_chbs_context'
I do start off with : "Accept any cxl_test topology device as the first
argument in cxl_chbs_context", but I can move the rest to its own
paragraph.
