| Message ID | 2726954.BEx9A2HvPv@kreacher |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI: Get rid of the list of children in struct acpi_device | expand |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Instead of walking the list of children of an ACPI device directly, > use acpi_dev_for_each_child() to carry out an action for all of > the given ACPI device's children. > > This will help to eliminate the children list head from struct > acpi_device as it is redundant and it is used in questionable ways > in some places (in particular, locking is needed for walking the > list pointed to it safely, but it is often missing). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > > v1 -> v2: > * Add R-by from Andy. > > --- > drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Applied, thanks.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:39 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Instead of walking the list of children of an ACPI device directly, > > use acpi_dev_for_each_child() to carry out an action for all of > > the given ACPI device's children. > > > > This will help to eliminate the children list head from struct > > acpi_device as it is redundant and it is used in questionable ways > > in some places (in particular, locking is needed for walking the > > list pointed to it safely, but it is often missing). > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > > > v1 -> v2: > > * Add R-by from Andy. > > > > --- > > drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. Thank you! Can you please expose a branch containing it for integration? The last patch in the series depends on this one.
Index: linux-pm/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c @@ -60,12 +60,29 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_dev EXPORT_SYMBOL(mfd_cell_disable); #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) +struct match_ids_walk_data { + struct acpi_device_id *ids; + struct acpi_device *adev; +}; + +static int match_device_ids(struct acpi_device *adev, void *data) +{ + struct match_ids_walk_data *wd = data; + + if (!acpi_match_device_ids(adev, wd->ids)) { + wd->adev = adev; + return 1; + } + + return 0; +} + static void mfd_acpi_add_device(const struct mfd_cell *cell, struct platform_device *pdev) { const struct mfd_cell_acpi_match *match = cell->acpi_match; - struct acpi_device *parent, *child; struct acpi_device *adev = NULL; + struct acpi_device *parent; parent = ACPI_COMPANION(pdev->dev.parent); if (!parent) @@ -83,14 +100,14 @@ static void mfd_acpi_add_device(const st if (match) { if (match->pnpid) { struct acpi_device_id ids[2] = {}; + struct match_ids_walk_data wd = { + .adev = NULL, + .ids = ids, + }; strlcpy(ids[0].id, match->pnpid, sizeof(ids[0].id)); - list_for_each_entry(child, &parent->children, node) { - if (!acpi_match_device_ids(child, ids)) { - adev = child; - break; - } - } + acpi_dev_for_each_child(parent, match_device_ids, &wd); + adev = wd.adev; } else { adev = acpi_find_child_device(parent, match->adr, false); }