Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 02:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:48:26 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > > > > > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the > > > > > > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device > > > > > > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may > > > > > > just have been added). > > > > > > > > > > > > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run > > > > > > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type > > > > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > Cc: 3.10+ > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > > > > > > > But, I think we need the additional patch below. > > > > > > > > Yes, I think you're right. > > > > > > That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like > > > in > > > the appended patch. > > > > That's fine by me. > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with > > device_attach(), which checks dev->driver inside the function? > > Well, device_attach() may be called from different places while this is > the only place where acpi_scan_attach_handler() is called. > > The check in acpi_bus_device_attach() is easier to follow to me, because > it clearly means "we don't need to do anything more if there's a handler", > while the check in acpi_scan_attach_handler() makes you wonder "why do we > need to return 1 in that case?" and then you need to go to the caller and > look at the check of the return value to see "ah, because we don't want > that device_attach() to be called then!". Sounds good to me. Thanks, -Toshi > > > That said, I am OK with either way. > > Cool. :-) > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > > > --- > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices > > > having them > > > > > > In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object > > > for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler > > > attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle > > > and the function should just return success immediately. Make > > > that happen. > > > > > > Reported-by: Toshi Kani > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > --- > > > drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > === > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > > @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac > > > if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, )) > > > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > > > > > + if (device->handler) > > > + return AE_OK; > > > + > > > ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); > > > if (ret) > > > return ret > 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 02:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:48:26 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may just have been added). For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com But, I think we need the additional patch below. Yes, I think you're right. That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in the appended patch. That's fine by me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with device_attach(), which checks dev-driver inside the function? Well, device_attach() may be called from different places while this is the only place where acpi_scan_attach_handler() is called. The check in acpi_bus_device_attach() is easier to follow to me, because it clearly means we don't need to do anything more if there's a handler, while the check in acpi_scan_attach_handler() makes you wonder why do we need to return 1 in that case? and then you need to go to the caller and look at the check of the return value to see ah, because we don't want that device_attach() to be called then!. Sounds good to me. Thanks, -Toshi That said, I am OK with either way. Cool. :-) Thanks, Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle and the function should just return success immediately. Make that happen. Reported-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com --- drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device)) return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; + if (device-handler) + return AE_OK; + ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); if (ret) return ret 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:48:26 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > > > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the > > > > > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device > > > > > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may > > > > > just have been added). > > > > > > > > > > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run > > > > > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type > > > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > Cc: 3.10+ > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > > > > > But, I think we need the additional patch below. > > > > > > Yes, I think you're right. > > > > That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in > > the appended patch. > > That's fine by me. > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with > device_attach(), which checks dev->driver inside the function? Well, device_attach() may be called from different places while this is the only place where acpi_scan_attach_handler() is called. The check in acpi_bus_device_attach() is easier to follow to me, because it clearly means "we don't need to do anything more if there's a handler", while the check in acpi_scan_attach_handler() makes you wonder "why do we need to return 1 in that case?" and then you need to go to the caller and look at the check of the return value to see "ah, because we don't want that device_attach() to be called then!". > That said, I am OK with either way. Cool. :-) Thanks, Rafael > > --- > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having > > them > > > > In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object > > for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler > > attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle > > and the function should just return success immediately. Make > > that happen. > > > > Reported-by: Toshi Kani > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > --- > > drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > === > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac > > if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, )) > > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > > > + if (device->handler) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); > > if (ret) > > return ret > 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the > > > > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device > > > > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may > > > > just have been added). > > > > > > > > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run > > > > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type > > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Cc: 3.10+ > > > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > > > But, I think we need the additional patch below. > > > > Yes, I think you're right. > > That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in > the appended patch. That's fine by me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with device_attach(), which checks dev->driver inside the function? That said, I am OK with either way. Thanks, -Toshi > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > --- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having > them > > In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object > for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler > attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle > and the function should just return success immediately. Make > that happen. > > Reported-by: Toshi Kani > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > === > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac > if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, )) > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > + if (device->handler) > + return AE_OK; > + > ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); > if (ret) > return ret > 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the > > > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device > > > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may > > > just have been added). > > > > > > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run > > > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Cc: 3.10+ > > > > Acked-by: Toshi Kani > > > > But, I think we need the additional patch below. > > Yes, I think you're right. That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in the appended patch. Thanks, Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle and the function should just return success immediately. Make that happen. Reported-by: Toshi Kani Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, )) return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; + if (device->handler) + return AE_OK; + ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); if (ret) return ret > 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may just have been added). For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com But, I think we need the additional patch below. Yes, I think you're right. That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in the appended patch. Thanks, Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle and the function should just return success immediately. Make that happen. Reported-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com --- drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device)) return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; + if (device-handler) + return AE_OK; + ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); if (ret) return ret 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may just have been added). For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com But, I think we need the additional patch below. Yes, I think you're right. That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in the appended patch. That's fine by me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with device_attach(), which checks dev-driver inside the function? That said, I am OK with either way. Thanks, -Toshi Thanks, Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle and the function should just return success immediately. Make that happen. Reported-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com --- drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device)) return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; + if (device-handler) + return AE_OK; + ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); if (ret) return ret 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:48:26 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 00:45 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 02:11:05 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote: On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may just have been added). For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com But, I think we need the additional patch below. Yes, I think you're right. That said I'd prefer to put the check into acpi_bus_device_attach() like in the appended patch. That's fine by me. Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Just a minor point, though. Isn't it a bit inconsistent with device_attach(), which checks dev-driver inside the function? Well, device_attach() may be called from different places while this is the only place where acpi_scan_attach_handler() is called. The check in acpi_bus_device_attach() is easier to follow to me, because it clearly means we don't need to do anything more if there's a handler, while the check in acpi_scan_attach_handler() makes you wonder why do we need to return 1 in that case? and then you need to go to the caller and look at the check of the return value to see ah, because we don't want that device_attach() to be called then!. That said, I am OK with either way. Cool. :-) Thanks, Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Subject: ACPI / scan: Do not try to attach scan handlers to devices having them In acpi_bus_device_attach(), if there is an ACPI device object for the given handle and that device object has a scan handler attached to it already, there's nothing more to do for that handle and the function should just return success immediately. Make that happen. Reported-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com --- drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1984,6 +1984,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_device_attac if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device)) return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; + if (device-handler) + return AE_OK; + ret = acpi_scan_attach_handler(device); if (ret) return ret 0 ? AE_OK : AE_CTRL_DEPTH; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
> > entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
> > represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
> > just have been added).
> >
> > For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
> > acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
> > ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Cc: 3.10+
>
> Acked-by: Toshi Kani
>
> But, I think we need the additional patch below.
Yes, I think you're right.
Thanks,
Rafael
> =
> From: Toshi Kani
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Do not call attach() if device is attached
>
> attach() of ACPI scan handlers does not expect to be called multiple
> times on a same device. Also, the attached handler may not be changed
> without calling its detach(). Change acpi_scan_attach_handler() not
> to call attach() when the given device is already attached.
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 20757e0..2b9e867 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1885,6 +1885,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct
> acpi_device *device)
> struct acpi_hardware_id *hwid;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + if (device->handler)
> + return 1;
> +
> list_for_each_entry(hwid, >pnp.ids, list) {
> const struct acpi_device_id *devid;
> struct acpi_scan_handler *handler;
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
> entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
> represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
> just have been added).
>
> For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
> acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
> ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Cc: 3.10+
Acked-by: Toshi Kani
But, I think we need the additional patch below.
Thanks,
-Toshi
=
From: Toshi Kani
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Do not call attach() if device is attached
attach() of ACPI scan handlers does not expect to be called multiple
times on a same device. Also, the attached handler may not be changed
without calling its detach(). Change acpi_scan_attach_handler() not
to call attach() when the given device is already attached.
Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 20757e0..2b9e867 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1885,6 +1885,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct
acpi_device *device)
struct acpi_hardware_id *hwid;
int ret = 0;
+ if (device->handler)
+ return 1;
+
list_for_each_entry(hwid, >pnp.ids, list) {
const struct acpi_device_id *devid;
struct acpi_scan_handler *handler;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
just have been added).
For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
But, I think we need the additional patch below.
Thanks,
-Toshi
=
From: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Do not call attach() if device is attached
attach() of ACPI scan handlers does not expect to be called multiple
times on a same device. Also, the attached handler may not be changed
without calling its detach(). Change acpi_scan_attach_handler() not
to call attach() when the given device is already attached.
Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 20757e0..2b9e867 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1885,6 +1885,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct
acpi_device *device)
struct acpi_hardware_id *hwid;
int ret = 0;
+ if (device-handler)
+ return 1;
+
list_for_each_entry(hwid, device-pnp.ids, list) {
const struct acpi_device_id *devid;
struct acpi_scan_handler *handler;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 01:32:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 02:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
just have been added).
For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
But, I think we need the additional patch below.
Yes, I think you're right.
Thanks,
Rafael
=
From: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Do not call attach() if device is attached
attach() of ACPI scan handlers does not expect to be called multiple
times on a same device. Also, the attached handler may not be changed
without calling its detach(). Change acpi_scan_attach_handler() not
to call attach() when the given device is already attached.
Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c |3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
index 20757e0..2b9e867 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -1885,6 +1885,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_attach_handler(struct
acpi_device *device)
struct acpi_hardware_id *hwid;
int ret = 0;
+ if (device-handler)
+ return 1;
+
list_for_each_entry(hwid, device-pnp.ids, list) {
const struct acpi_device_id *devid;
struct acpi_scan_handler *handler;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
just have been added).
For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: 3.10+
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
===
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -353,10 +353,12 @@ static void acpi_scan_bus_device_check(a
mutex_lock(_scan_lock);
lock_device_hotplug();
- acpi_bus_get_device(handle, );
- if (device) {
- dev_warn(>dev, "Attempt to re-insert\n");
- goto out;
+ if (ost_source != ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK) {
+ acpi_bus_get_device(handle, );
+ if (device) {
+ dev_warn(>dev, "Attempt to re-insert\n");
+ goto out;
+ }
}
acpi_evaluate_hotplug_ost(handle, ost_source,
ACPI_OST_SC_INSERT_IN_PROGRESS, NULL);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] ACPI / scan: Always call acpi_bus_scan() for bus check notifications
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
An ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK notification means that we should scan the
entire namespace starting from the given handle even if the device
represented by that handle is present (other devices below it may
just have been added).
For this reason, modify acpi_scan_bus_device_check() to always run
acpi_bus_scan() if the notification being handled is of type
ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Cc: 3.10+ sta...@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/acpi/scan.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
===
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -353,10 +353,12 @@ static void acpi_scan_bus_device_check(a
mutex_lock(acpi_scan_lock);
lock_device_hotplug();
- acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device);
- if (device) {
- dev_warn(device-dev, Attempt to re-insert\n);
- goto out;
+ if (ost_source != ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK) {
+ acpi_bus_get_device(handle, device);
+ if (device) {
+ dev_warn(device-dev, Attempt to re-insert\n);
+ goto out;
+ }
}
acpi_evaluate_hotplug_ost(handle, ost_source,
ACPI_OST_SC_INSERT_IN_PROGRESS, NULL);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
