From patchwork Wed Apr 17 13:19:00 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 789940 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4C6513C689; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713360169; cv=none; b=Dw4JDbDJcb6cWr2dq/6lDWt13hESClf+Ar0KCxuSgewlDZhIDXjlJJPVCnydHz02aywj8BYwQPe3b3nWJvBMet3J/2R4o3jJ/7bHxjMITnuZXO8POlsB6lUV+o6jUlg8N5HRTXKC41CYlsMQz/fQ9+4wKUNSncvP8G6oMNjVz3k= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713360169; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+y77+7QZby+LVdmrVnp+NoTqJPrXhj6o2AOLhNYOMfg=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KGf5FqhAwddrzDPQJD5Av7z8lm1wKfOYBV/QeJ8EfjzFKGwkYgDwIDRAHiijierjjO9V0T9cOjR27Nmk7eYaSrMs7pCUKBDx+Wepw2xSy6ISeMHGXpMVLrWeTu7XOo7Kf9lp80dZExDrNLqFoLKtkvKkSBQRrBL8Amb2mR9/i+E= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VKM0C6Nc2z6K7GV; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:17:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8333E140C9C; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:22:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from SecurePC-101-06.china.huawei.com (10.122.247.231) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:22:44 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , , , , , , , , , Russell King , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon CC: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , , Subject: [PATCH v6 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and_detach(); Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:19:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20240417131909.7925-8-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240417131909.7925-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20240417131909.7925-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.213) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) Precursor patch adds the ability to pass a uintptr_t of flags into acpi_scan_check_and detach() so that additional flags can be added to indicate whether to defer portions of the eject flow. The new flag follows in the next patch. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron --- v6: Based on internal feedback switch to less invasive change to using flags rather than a struct. v5: New patch resulting from rebase. - Internal review suggested we could also do this with flags so I'm looking for feedback on which option people find more readable. --- drivers/acpi/scan.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c index d1464324de95..1ec9677e6c2d 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -244,13 +244,16 @@ static int acpi_scan_try_to_offline(struct acpi_device *device) return 0; } -static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check) +#define ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS BIT(0) + +static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p) { struct acpi_scan_handler *handler = adev->handler; + uintptr_t flags = (uintptr_t)p; - acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, check); + acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_scan_check_and_detach, p); - if (check) { + if (flags & ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS) { acpi_bus_get_status(adev); /* * Skip devices that are still there and take the enabled @@ -288,7 +291,9 @@ static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *check) static void acpi_scan_check_subtree(struct acpi_device *adev) { - acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)true); + uintptr_t flags = ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS; + + acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags); } static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device) @@ -2601,7 +2606,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_bus_scan); */ void acpi_bus_trim(struct acpi_device *adev) { - acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, NULL); + uintptr_t flags = 0; + + acpi_scan_check_and_detach(adev, (void *)flags); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_bus_trim);