Dan,

On Fri, 31 May 2019, Dan Murphy wrote:
> Nikolaus
>
> On 5/30/19 9:42 AM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Nikolaus
>>
>> On 5/29/19 7:18 AM, Nikolaus Voss wrote:
>>> If an ACPI SSDT overlay is loaded after built-in tables
>>> have been loaded e.g. via configfs or efivar_ssdt_load()
>>> it is necessary to rewalk the namespace to resolve
>>> references. Without this, relative and absolute paths
>>> like ^PCI0.SBUS or \_SB.PCI0.SBUS are not resolved
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> Make configfs load use the same method as efivar_ssdt_load().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@loewensteinmedical.de>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c   |  6 +-----
>>>   drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
>>> index f92033661239..663f0d88f912 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_configfs.c
>>> @@ -56,11 +56,7 @@ static ssize_t acpi_table_aml_write(struct
>>> config_item *cfg,
>>>       if (!table->header)
>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>>   -    ACPI_INFO(("Host-directed Dynamic ACPI Table Load:"));
>>> -    ret = acpi_tb_install_and_load_table(
>>> -            ACPI_PTR_TO_PHYSADDR(table->header),
>>> -            ACPI_TABLE_ORIGIN_EXTERNAL_VIRTUAL, FALSE,
>>> -            &table->index);
>>> +    ret = acpi_load_table(table->header);
>>>       if (ret) {
>>>           kfree(table->header);
>>>           table->header = NULL;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c
>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c
>>> index 4f30f06a6f78..61f2d46e52ba 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbxfload.c
>>> @@ -297,6 +297,17 @@ acpi_status acpi_load_table(struct
>>> acpi_table_header *table)
>>>       status =
>>> acpi_tb_install_and_load_table(ACPI_PTR_TO_PHYSADDR(table),
>>>                           ACPI_TABLE_ORIGIN_EXTERNAL_VIRTUAL,
>>>                           FALSE, &table_index);
>>> +
>>> +    if (!ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> Checkpatch should complain about putting brackets around single
>> statement if's.
>
> Would ACPI_SUCCESS make more sense here?

yes, changed.