From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, akash.goel@intel.com,
shashidhar.hiremath@intel.com, tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] acpi: Export acpi_bus_type
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1687142.Ti6uQtexoh@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160119163104.GA9469@wunner.de>
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 05:31:04 PM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:59:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:00:47 AM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:46:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 18, 2016 11:39:07 PM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> > > > > > > If you want to check if the device ir present at all, you cen use
> > > > > > > acpi_device_is_present() introduced recently (although that would need
> > > > > > > to be exported if you want to use it from a driver).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I meant acpi_dev_present(), sorry about the mistake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess we should rename it to acpi_device_found() or something similar
> > > > > > to avoid such confusion in the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > The name was chosen because the PCI equivalent is called pci_dev_present()
> > > > > and I assumed that name already stuck in developers' heads, so if they're
> > > > > looking for an ACPI presence detection function, that's what they'd look
> > > > > for first.
> > > >
> > > > But "present" in ACPI really means something different. There may be ACPI
> > > > device objects in the namespace for devices that are not *actually* present.
> > >
> > > You mean synthesized devices like LNXSYBUS?
> > > Don't think anyone is going to test for the presence of that.
> >
> > No, I mean real devices, where the corresponding ACPI object has _STA that
> > returns 0.
> >
> > There may be a couple of reasons for that. The device the ACPI object
> > corresponds to may not be physically present (eg. it may possible to
> > hot-add it) or the device may depend on something else for functionality
> > and that thing hasn't been set up yet etc.
> >
> > The presence of an ACPI device object in the namespace means that the
> > platform firmware knows about the device, but it need not mean that
> > the device is really there. _STA returns that piece of information.
>
> Thank you for the clarification, these are very good points.
>
> The drivers in question use acpi_get_devices() merely to probe for
> presence of a device in the namespace. They do not invoke _STA,
> nor do they even hold a pointer to the acpi_device or acpi_handle
> when detecting presence. Mostly this is about activating quirks
> if a certain ACPI device is detected.
I know, but it doesn't matter too much. I don't want people to wonder
what the difference between acpi_dev_present() and acpi_device_is_present()
is and when to use which of them.
> Currently about 50% of the calls to acpi_get_devices() in the drivers
> fit this pattern and the point of acpi_dev_present() is to give
> developers a simple, lightweight tool as an alternative.
Again, I know, but the name of the function should be different.
> However the kernel-doc should be amended to clarify that _STA is not
> invoked. The patch below is a suggestion, feel free to rephrase.
That's OK, but it's not enough.
I guess it won't be a big deal to change the function name and rebase
the patches depending on it on top of that change, will it?
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-19 22:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1452752207-30382-1-git-send-email-ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com>
2016-01-14 6:16 ` [PATCH 10/11] acpi: Export acpi_bus_type ankitprasad.r.sharma
2016-01-15 14:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-18 9:01 ` Ankitprasad Sharma
2016-01-18 14:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-18 18:26 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-01-19 8:15 ` Ankitprasad Sharma
2016-01-18 22:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-18 22:39 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-01-18 22:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-18 23:00 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-01-18 23:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-19 16:31 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-01-19 22:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-01-14 6:16 ` [PATCH 11/11] drm/i915: Disable use of stolen area by User when Intel RST is present ankitprasad.r.sharma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1687142.Ti6uQtexoh@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=akash.goel@intel.com \
--cc=ankitprasad.r.sharma@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=shashidhar.hiremath@intel.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).