Re: [PATCH rev.2 1/6] ACPI: Separate adding ACPI device objects from probing ACPI drivers

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 09:10:41 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 02:48 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 17, 2012 05:08:17 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 23:17 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > (snip)
> > > 
> > > >  struct acpi_device_ops {
> > > > Index: linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > > +++ linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > > > @@ -494,7 +494,8 @@ static int acpi_bus_match(struct device
> > > >  	struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > > >  	struct acpi_driver *acpi_drv = to_acpi_driver(drv);
> > > >  
> > > > -	return !acpi_match_device_ids(acpi_dev, acpi_drv->ids);
> > > > +	return acpi_dev->bus_ops.acpi_op_match
> > > > +		&& !acpi_match_device_ids(acpi_dev, acpi_drv->ids);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static int acpi_device_uevent(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env *env)
> > > > @@ -1418,6 +1419,17 @@ static int acpi_bus_remove(struct acpi_d
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * acpi_hot_add_bind - Bind _ADR-based devices on hot-add.
> > > > + * @device: ACPI device node to bind.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static void acpi_hot_add_bind(struct acpi_device *device)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (device->flags.bus_address
> > > > +	    && device->parent && device->parent->ops.bind)
> > > > +		device->parent->ops.bind(device);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static int acpi_add_single_object(struct acpi_device **child,
> > > >  				  acpi_handle handle, int type,
> > > >  				  unsigned long long sta,
> > > > @@ -1490,13 +1502,8 @@ static int acpi_add_single_object(struct
> > > >  
> > > >  	result = acpi_device_register(device);
> > > >  
> > > > -	/*
> > > > -	 * Bind _ADR-Based Devices when hot add
> > > > -	 */
> > > > -	if (device->flags.bus_address) {
> > > > -		if (device->parent && device->parent->ops.bind)
> > > > -			device->parent->ops.bind(device);
> > > > -	}
> > > 
> > > I think the original code above is hot-add only because ops.bind is not
> > > set at boot since the acpi_pci driver has not been registered yet.  It
> > > seems that acpi_pci_bridge_scan() called from acpi_pci_root_add() takes
> > > care of the binding.
> > 
> > Ah, I see the problem.  During boot the PCI root bridge driver is not present
> > yet when all struct acpi_device "devices" are registered, so their parents'
> > .bind() callbacks are all empty, so the code above has no effect.
> > 
> > But say we're doing a PCI root bridge hotplug, in which case the driver is
> > present, so acpi_pci_bind() will be executed both from acpi_pci_bridge_scan()
> > and from here, won't it?
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> > OK, this needs to be addressed.
> > 
> > > This brings me a question for acpi_bus_probe_start() below...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > +	if (device->bus_ops.acpi_op_match)
> > > > +		acpi_hot_add_bind(device);
> > > >  
> > > >  end:
> > > >  	if (!result) {
> > > > @@ -1522,6 +1529,7 @@ static void acpi_bus_add_power_resource(
> > > >  	struct acpi_bus_ops ops = {
> > > >  		.acpi_op_add = 1,
> > > >  		.acpi_op_start = 1,
> > > > +		.acpi_op_match = 1,
> > > >  	};
> > > >  	struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -1574,9 +1582,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac
> > > >  				      void *context, void **return_value)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct acpi_bus_ops *ops = context;
> > > > +	struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> > > >  	int type;
> > > >  	unsigned long long sta;
> > > > -	struct acpi_device *device;
> > > >  	acpi_status status;
> > > >  	int result;
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -1596,52 +1604,86 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac
> > > >  		return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	/*
> > > > -	 * We may already have an acpi_device from a previous enumeration.  If
> > > > -	 * so, we needn't add it again, but we may still have to start it.
> > > > -	 */
> > > > -	device = NULL;
> > > >  	acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device);
> > > >  	if (ops->acpi_op_add && !device) {
> > > > -		acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, ops);
> > > > -		/* Is the device a known good platform device? */
> > > > -		if (device
> > > > -		    && !acpi_match_device_ids(device, acpi_platform_device_ids))
> > > > -			acpi_create_platform_device(device);
> > > > -	}
> > > > -
> > > > -	if (!device)
> > > > -		return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > > > +		struct acpi_bus_ops add_ops = *ops;
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (ops->acpi_op_start && !(ops->acpi_op_add)) {
> > > > -		status = acpi_start_single_object(device);
> > > > -		if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > > > +		add_ops.acpi_op_match = 0;
> > > > +		acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, &add_ops);
> > > > +		if (!device)
> > > >  			return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > > > +
> > > > +		device->bus_ops.acpi_op_match = 1;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (!*return_value)
> > > >  		*return_value = device;
> > > > +
> > > >  	return AE_OK;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_probe_start(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> > > > +					void *context, void **not_used)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct acpi_bus_ops *ops = context;
> > > > +	acpi_status status = AE_OK;
> > > > +	struct acpi_device *device;
> > > > +	unsigned long long sta_not_used;
> > > > +	int type_not_used;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ignore errors ignored by acpi_bus_check_add() to avoid terminating
> > > 
> > > "ignore" seems duplicated. 
> >  
> > It is not.  This is supposed to mean that the errors previously ignored by
> > acpi_bus_check_add() should be ignored here as well.
> 
> Oh, I see.  Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> 
> > > > +	 * namespace walks prematurely.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (acpi_bus_type_and_status(handle, &type_not_used, &sta_not_used))
> > > > +		return AE_OK;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device))
> > > > +		return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ops->acpi_op_add) {
> > > > +		if (!acpi_match_device_ids(device, acpi_platform_device_ids)) {
> > > > +			/* This is a known good platform device. */
> > > > +			acpi_create_platform_device(device);
> > > > +		} else {
> > > > +			int ret = device_attach(&device->dev);
> > > > +			acpi_hot_add_bind(device);
> > > 
> > > Since acpi_pci_root_add() is called by device_attach(), I think this
> > > acpi_hot_add_bind() calls .bind() of a device at boot since its .bind()
> > > may be set.  Is that correct?  If so, how does it coordinate with the
> > > bind procedure in acpi_pci_bridge_scan()?
> > 
> > It actually doesn't.
> > 
> > However, the $subject patch doesn't change this particular aspect of the
> > original behavior, because with it applied the PCI root bridge driver is still
> > not present when the device_attach() above is executed for all objects in the
> > given namespace scope, so the .bind() callbacks should all be empty.  In other
> > words, it doesn't change the boot case.
> > 
> > It also reproduces the original behavior in the hotplug case which may not be
> > correct.  Patch [2/6], however, kind of changes the boot case into the hotplug
> > case and things start to get ugly.
> 
> Yes, I was concerned with the behavior when patch [2/6] applied.  It is
> actually a good thing that this hotplug issue is now exposed in the boot
> path.  This means that boot and hot-add paths are consistent.  So, we
> just need to fix it.
> 
> 
> > Well, what about calling acpi_hot_add_bind() from acpi_bus_check_add(),
> > right after doing the acpi_add_single_object()?  It would avoid calling
> > acpi_pci_bind() twice for the same device during root bridge hotplug too,
> > because in that case acpi_pci_root_add() will be called after all of these
> > acpi_hot_add_bind() calls.  At the same time if a single device is
> > hot-added and its parent happens to have .bind() set, it will be run
> > from acpi_bus_check_add().
> 
> I may be missing something here, but in case of root bridge hot-add, I
> think acpi_pci_root_add() still calls .bind() after acpi_bus_check_add()
> called it.  So, it's called twice, isn't it? 

No, it isn't.  The reason is that the .bind pointers of all devices below the
root bridge are populated from within acpi_pci_root_add() and are NULL before
it is called.  Therefore they are NULL when acpi_bus_check_add() checks them. 

Of course, I'm referring to this patch:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1889821/

After this and [2/6] (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1884701/) have been
applied, it is quite easy to verify that acpi_pci_bind() is called exactly once
for each PCI device during boot (just add a debug printk to that function) and
the same should happen during root bridge hotplug.

> We need to decide which module is responsible for calling .bind().  I
> think it should be the ACPI scan module, not the ACPI PCI root bridge
> driver, because:
>  - bind() needs to be called when _ADR device is added.  The ACPI scan
> module can scan any devices, while the PCI root driver can only scan
> when it is added.
>  - acpi_bus_remove() calls unbind() at hot-remove.  The same module
> should be responsible for both bind() and unbind() handling.
>  - It is cleaner to keep struct acpi_device_ops interface to be called
> by the ACPI core.

I agree with that. :-)

Moreover, I don't think we need acpi_pci_bind() and acpi_pci_unbind() at all.

> So, I would propose the following changes.
> 
>  - Move the acpi_hot_add_bind() call back to the original place after
> the device_attach() call.
>  - Rename the name of acpi_hot_add_bind() to something like
> acpi_bind_adr_device() since it is no longer hot-add only (and is
> specific to _ADR devices).
>  - Create its pair function, acpi_unbind_adr_device(), which is called
> from acpi_bus_remove().  When a constructor interface is introduced, its
> destructor should be introduced as well. 
>  - Remove the binding procedure from acpi_pci_root_add().  This should
> be done in patch [2/6].

Well, what about moving the code from acpi_pci_bind()/acpi_pci_unbind()
somewhere else and removing those things altogether?

Rafael


-- 
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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/