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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BC5C433EF for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 19:52:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345384AbiFOTwh (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:52:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52214 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343917AbiFOTwd (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:52:33 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-f177.google.com (mail-yb1-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 529A7D81; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-f177.google.com with SMTP id v22so22372101ybd.5; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mL9akpVVZ4tEzNekwbjZgLIJgiBmLezCfn7/cgOspMQ=; b=WTt/+ZRr+Mm+q7tKoJiaPW2HT4+9IFUK0PZFU1rbiY2QdpZwke6Ek9VilKanhUhVVs 1MUV+ALCpnC0Mp9202mcsVOSDetHm+bTKA40ZNi91AgARWHiTpHMGUOHT8/FnIN31SIV OAq5B3kpi9HDf+5DCzQ7KkLQ5sVV3jEEu1rcRpHQ5mmVSvEWlEFhUlDgtedEY9SgyJmQ rbq+XolDRdo5fRmRJFQEZ64NEYK28kMpaFC6kFWka9N+VUpJohwINIdc3wnfOeZxhAx+ TZAv2gRDB3iKVbXCwrFIHpmPJHTskok6R1qAdqvz6hi8Zf2M2l27VkOutYgUVqMWCfES 1y4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/JsnsH/s6kVF7bTKq/tGOJxTbm8r9t4yMIj1D+JYG0HHcxFkTl DT+zHf4sQlVpShtGH7QQNzeqhOQx5byE5nDbFOA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sF+FBhgh0k43sS5ry6Ox06fy9vYOfaKhwdj6kn6fPKiE+CPeLL04/IuPY068Cde/SdzOSdQg3fFpFDF6iy/GU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:d748:0:b0:65c:6b00:55af with SMTP id o69-20020a25d748000000b0065c6b0055afmr1534149ybg.365.1655322750507; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:52:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1843211.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher> <2653857.mvXUDI8C0e@kreacher> <2851774.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher> In-Reply-To: From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:52:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] thunderbolt: ACPI: Replace tb_acpi_find_port() with acpi_find_child_by_adr() To: Mika Westerberg Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux ACPI , LKML , Linux PM , Andy Shevchenko , Hans de Goede , Sakari Ailus , Andreas Noever , Michael Jamet , Yehezkel Bernat , "open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:" , Heikki Krogerus Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 8:27 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 08:25:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi Mika, > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:07 AM Mika Westerberg > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:11:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > Use acpi_find_child_by_adr() to find the child matching a given bus > > > > address instead of tb_acpi_find_port() that walks the list of children > > > > of an ACPI device directly for this purpose and drop the latter. > > > > > > > > Apart from simplifying the code, 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 > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > * Drop tb_acpi_find_port() (Heikki, Andy). > > > > * Change the subject accordingly > > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c | 27 ++++----------------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c > > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c > > > > @@ -301,26 +301,6 @@ static bool tb_acpi_bus_match(struct dev > > > > return tb_is_switch(dev) || tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev); > > > > } > > > > > > > > -static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_port(struct acpi_device *adev, > > > > - const struct tb_port *port) > > > > -{ > > > > - struct acpi_device *port_adev; > > > > - > > > > - if (!adev) > > > > - return NULL; > > > > - > > > > - /* > > > > - * Device routers exists under the downstream facing USB4 port > > > > - * of the parent router. Their _ADR is always 0. > > > > - */ > > > > - list_for_each_entry(port_adev, &adev->children, node) { > > > > - if (acpi_device_adr(port_adev) == port->port) > > > > - return port_adev; > > > > - } > > > > - > > > > - return NULL; > > > > -} > > > > - > > > > static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(struct tb_switch *sw) > > > > { > > > > struct acpi_device *adev = NULL; > > > > @@ -331,7 +311,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switc > > > > struct tb_port *port = tb_port_at(tb_route(sw), parent_sw); > > > > struct acpi_device *port_adev; > > > > > > > > - port_adev = tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev), port); > > > > + port_adev = acpi_find_child_by_adr(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev), > > > > + port->port); > > > > if (port_adev) > > > > adev = acpi_find_child_device(port_adev, 0, false); > > > > } else { > > > > @@ -364,8 +345,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_ > > > > if (tb_is_switch(dev)) > > > > return tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(tb_to_switch(dev)); > > > > else if (tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev)) > > > > - return tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(dev->parent), > > > > - tb_to_usb4_port_device(dev)->port); > > > > > > Can you move the above comment here too? > > > > Do you mean to move the comment from tb_acpi_find_port() right here or > > before the if (tb_is_switch(dev)) line above? > > > > I think that tb_acpi_switch_find_companion() would be a better place > > for that comment. At least it would match the code passing 0 to > > acpi_find_child_device() in there. > > Yes, I agree (as long as the comment stays somewhere close ;-)) OK, I'll move it to tb_acpi_switch_find_companion() then. Thanks!