On Thursday, September 25, 2014 09:27:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 05:44:43 PM Lan Tianyu wrote:
> > On 2014年09月25日 06:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 03:06:43 PM Lan Tianyu wrote:
> > >> ACPI 5.0 introduces _DEP to designate device objects that OSPM should
> > >> assign a higher priority in start ordering due to future operation region
> > >> accesses.
> > >>
> > >> On Asus T100TA, ACPI battery info are read from a I2C slave device via
> > >> I2C operation region. Before I2C operation region handler is installed,
> > >> battery _STA always returns 0. There is a _DEP method of designating
> > >> start order under battery device node.
> > >>
> > >> This patch is to implement _DEP feature to fix battery issue on the Asus
> > >> T100TA.
> > >> Introducing acpi_bus_dep_device_list and adding dep_present flags in the
> > >> struct
> > >> acpi_device. During ACPI namespace scan, all devices with _DEP support
> > >> will be put
> > >> into the new list and those devices' dep_present flag will be set.
> > >> Driver's probe()
> > >> should return EPROBE_DEFER when find dep_present is set. When I2C
> > >> operation
> > >> region handler is installed, check all devices on the new list. Remove
> > >> the one from
> > >> list if _DEP condition is met and clear its dep_present flag and do
> > >> acpi_bus_attch()
> > >> for the device in order to resolve battery _STA issue on the Asus T100TA.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu....@intel.com>
> > >
> > > This is going in the right direction in my view, but isn't there just yet.
> > >
> > > Details below.
> >
> > Thanks for review.
> >
> > >
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/acpi/battery.c | 4 +++
> > >> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 84
> > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> drivers/i2c/i2c-acpi.c | 1 +
> > >> include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 2 ++
> > >> include/linux/acpi.h | 3 ++
> > >> 5 files changed, 94 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/battery.c b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > >> index 1c162e7..c0a68ce 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > >> @@ -1194,6 +1194,10 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_device
> > >> *device)
> > >>
> > >> if (!device)
> > >> return -EINVAL;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (device->dep_present)
> > >
> > > device->flags.dep_present would be better. Or even call the flag
> > > dep_unmet.
> >
> > Ok. Will update.
> >
> > >
> > >> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > >> +
> > >> battery = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_battery), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> if (!battery)
> > >> return -ENOMEM;
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > >> index 3bf7764..a26dbb3 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > >> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ bool acpi_force_hot_remove;
> > >>
> > >> static const char *dummy_hid = "device";
> > >>
> > >> +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_bus_dep_device_list);
> > >> static LIST_HEAD(acpi_bus_id_list);
> > >> static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_scan_lock);
> > >> static LIST_HEAD(acpi_scan_handlers_list);
> > >> @@ -43,6 +44,11 @@ DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_lock);
> > >> LIST_HEAD(acpi_wakeup_device_list);
> > >> static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_hp_context_lock);
> > >>
> > >> +struct acpi_dep_data {
> > >> + struct list_head node;
> > >> + struct acpi_device *adev;
> > >> +};
> > >> +
> > >> struct acpi_device_bus_id{
> > >> char bus_id[15];
> > >> unsigned int instance_no;
> > >> @@ -2048,6 +2054,32 @@ static void acpi_scan_init_hotplug(struct
> > >> acpi_device *adev)
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> +static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(struct acpi_device * adev)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct acpi_dep_data *dep;
> > >> + acpi_status status;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!acpi_has_method(adev->handle, "_DEP"))
> > >> + return;
> > >> +
> > >> + status = acpi_evaluate_reference(adev->handle, "_DEP", NULL,
> > >> + &adev->dep_devices);
> > >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > >> + dev_err(&adev->dev, "Fail to evaluate _DEP.\n");
> > >
> > > "Failed"
> > >
> > >> + return;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + dep = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_dep_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> + if (!dep) {
> > >> + dev_err(&adev->dev, "Memory allocation error.\n");
> > >
> > > "Not enough memory for _DEP list entry\n"
> > >
> > >> + return;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + dep->adev = adev;
> > >> + adev->dep_present = true;
> > >> + list_add_tail(&dep->node , &acpi_bus_dep_device_list);
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(acpi_handle handle, u32
> > >> lvl_not_used,
> > >> void *not_used, void
> > >> **return_value)
> > >> {
> > >> @@ -2074,6 +2106,7 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(acpi_handle
> > >> handle, u32 lvl_not_used,
> > >> return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > >>
> > >> acpi_scan_init_hotplug(device);
> > >> + acpi_device_dep_initialize(device);
> > >>
> > >> out:
> > >> if (!*return_value)
> > >> @@ -2191,6 +2224,57 @@ static void acpi_bus_attach(struct acpi_device
> > >> *device)
> > >> acpi_bus_attach(child);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> +static int acpi_device_dep_check(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct acpi_device *dep_adev;
> > >> + struct acpi_device_physical_node *pn;
> > >> + int i;
> > >> +
> > >> + for (i = 0; i < adev->dep_devices.count; i++) {
> > >> + dep_adev = acpi_bus_get_acpi_device(
> > >> + adev->dep_devices.handles[i]);
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!dep_adev)
> > >> + return -ENODEV;
> > >> +
> > >> + /* Check acpi device driver probing */
> > >> + if (dep_adev->dev.driver)
> > >> + continue;
> > >
> > > This check isn't sufficient, because _DEP is supposed to be about
> > > operation
> > > regions being present, not about drivers being present. Same for the
> > > driver
> > > check below.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't bother to check drivers in this stub implementation. ->
> >
> > Sounds like we need to check whether the dependent device node has been
> > attached with operation region handler and this needs ACPICA to expose
> > such function, right?
>
> Yes. That's why I suggested to do the check in the function that installs
> the operation region handler. This way we are sure that the handler is
> already present.
>
> > >
> > >> +
> > >> + if (!dep_adev->physical_node_count)
> > >> + return -ENODEV;
> > >> +
> > >> + /* Check physcial device node driver probing */
> > >> + mutex_lock(&dep_adev->physical_node_lock);
> > >> + list_for_each_entry(pn, &dep_adev->physical_node_list,
> > >> node) {
> > >> + if (pn->dev->driver) {
> > >> +
> > >> mutex_unlock(&dep_adev->physical_node_lock);
> > >> + continue;
> > >> + }
> > >> + }
> > >> + mutex_unlock(&dep_adev->physical_node_lock);
> > >> + return -EFAULT;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> + return 0;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +int acpi_walk_dep_device_list(void)
> > >
> > > -> I'd pass the operation region device to that (and I'd call the function
> > > differently, but that's a detail). Then, I'd just clear flags.dep_unmet
> > > for all devices having that operation region device in their dep_devices
> > > (and drop their entries from the list). It wouldn't cover the case when
> > > one device depends on two operation regions at the same time (in a
> > > meaningful
> > > way), but should be sufficient to address the battery problem at hand.
> > >
> >
> > This requires the dependent devices have a list to record devices which
> > depends on them, right? Create such lists during ACPI namespace scan.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. "Dependent" means "depending on something", so
> the
> question reads "This requires the devices with _DEP to have a list of devices
> that depend on them" which is probably not what you meant.
>
> For each device with _DEP we have dep_devices, so if you pass a pointer
> (opregion_adev) to the device that has just installed an operation region
> handler to acpi_walk_dep_device_list() as an argument, then you can do
>
> for (i = 0; i < adev->dep_devices.count; i++)
> if (opregion_adev->handle == adev->dep_devices.handles[i]) {
> adev->dep_unmet = false;
> acpi_bus_attach(adev);
> list_del(&dep->node);
> kfree(dep);
> }
>
> and of course appropriate locking needs to be there in case this races with
> enumeration during hotplug after loading a new ACPI table on demand).
>
> I think you can even define
>
> struct acpi_dep_data {
> struct list_head node;
> struct acpi_device *master;
> struct acpi_device *slave;
> };
>
> and create that for every valid pair of master (device pointed to by
> _DEP)/slave
> (device with _DEP) and create a list of these. Then, you won't need
> dep_devices
> in struct acpi_device any more and your acpi_walk_dep_device_list() will only
> need to walk the list until it finds the matching master/slave pair.
>
> That will handle the case when one device depends on multiple other devices
> too
> I think.
Of course, in that case dep_unmet needs to be a counter that will be dropped by
1
every time an item is dropped from the list for the given slave device. In
which
case it is better to keep it directly under struct acpi_device rather than in
the
flags.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/
