From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E800C04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 12:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B7D268FA for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 12:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="ZfURkIDk" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727255AbfEaMqc (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 08:46:32 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:46678 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726626AbfEaMqc (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 08:46:32 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4VCkLmF120243; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1559306781; bh=3mnPV3T2GcEEK7hfjJaRX34/fY3geOiCoV4TEkYlC9c=; h=Subject:From:To:CC:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ZfURkIDkrQCU3I5j3XfaaRDiSTvmVEzeKoUJANiT8G/i5jc4PbY9iJXSuYggEdX46 ZH+Oe8HSW22Ikb67H+ypLaAiFgoI5/1viqkQpUrv/tOePRLL86xVhZRmCSPIYUfAQ7 1HmGhTzN0rePKu7Nj+kO6EsjqA4nLx12nR1HAk80= Received: from DFLE101.ent.ti.com (dfle101.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.22]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4VCkLfx063198 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:21 -0500 Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) by DFLE101.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:19 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:19 -0500 Received: from [10.250.65.13] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4VCkJA1063192; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Resolve objects on host-directed table loads From: Dan Murphy To: Nikolaus Voss , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Robert Moore , Erik Schmauss , Jacek Anaszewski , Pavel Machek , Thierry Reding CC: , , , References: <8704391ae3004a6b4dd17975dbcc9e88bd28cf4b.1559127603.git.nikolaus.voss@loewensteinmedical.de> <2944848d-d004-6750-b95d-825b1758ff22@ti.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 07:46:18 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2944848d-d004-6750-b95d-825b1758ff22@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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 >> --- >>   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? Dan