On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>
> Split the ACPI processor driver into two parts, one that is
> non-modular, resides in the ACPI core and handles the enumeration
> and hotplug of processors and one that implements the rest of the
> existing processor driver functionality.
>
> The non-modular part uses an ACPI scan handler object to enumerate
> processors on the basis of information provided by the ACPI namespace
> and to hook up with the common ACPI hotplug infrastructure. It also
> populates the ACPI handle of each processor device having a
> corresponding object in the ACPI namespace, which allows the driver
> proper to bind to those devices, and makes the driver bind to them
> if it is readily available (i.e. loaded) when the scan handler's
> .attach() routine is running.
>
> There are a few reasons to make this change.
>
> First, switching the ACPI processor driver to using the common ACPI
> hotplug infrastructure reduces code duplication and size considerably,
> even though a new file is created along with a header comment etc.
>
> Second, since the common hotplug code attempts to offline devices
> before starting the (non-reversible) removal procedure, it will abort
> (and possibly roll back) hot-remove operations involving processors
> if cpu_down() returns an error code for one of them instead of
> continuing them blindly (if /sys/firmware/acpi/hotplug/force_remove
> is unset). That is a more desirable behavior than what the current
> code does.
>
> Finally, the separation of the scan/hotplug part from the driver
> proper makes it possible to simplify the driver's .remove() routine,
> because it doesn't need to worry about the possible cleanup related
> to processor removal any more (the scan/hotplug part is responsible
> for that now) and can handle device removal and driver removal
> symmetricaly (i.e. as appropriate).
>
> Some user-visible changes in sysfs are made (for example, the
> 'sysdev' link from the ACPI device node to the processor device's
> directory is gone and a 'physical_node' link is present instead,
> a 'firmware_node' link is present in the processor device's
> directory, the processor driver is now visible under
> /sys/bus/cpu/drivers/ and bound to the processor device), but
> that shouldn't affect the functionality that users care about
> (frequency scaling, C-states and thermal management).
This looks very nice. I have one question below.
> Tested on my venerable Toshiba Portege R500.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/Makefile | 1
> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 473 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/acpi/glue.c | 6
> drivers/acpi/internal.h | 3
> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 803
> +++-------------------------------------
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 1
> drivers/base/cpu.c | 11
> include/acpi/processor.h | 5
> 8 files changed, 574 insertions(+), 729 deletions(-)
:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/cpu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/cpu.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/cpu.c
> @@ -13,11 +13,21 @@
> #include <linux/gfp.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>
> #include "base.h"
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct device *, cpu_sys_devices);
>
> +static int cpu_subsys_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> +{
> + /* ACPI style match is the only one that may succeed. */
> + if (acpi_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
Can you explain why this change is needed? Do CPU devices still behave
the same on non-ACPI systems?
Thanks,
-Toshi
> + return 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> static int cpu_subsys_online(struct device *dev)
> {
> @@ -76,6 +86,7 @@ static DEVICE_ATTR(release, S_IWUSR, NUL
> struct bus_type cpu_subsys = {
> .name = "cpu",
> .dev_name = "cpu",
> + .match = cpu_subsys_match,
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> .online = cpu_subsys_online,
> .offline = cpu_subsys_offline,
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
