Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary
> > indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM,
> > which is also subject to retpolines.
> >
> > Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that,
> > as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI
> > except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when
> > ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line,
> > or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system).
> >
> > To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM
> > functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm
> > object that is not necessary any more.
> >
> > Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do
> > extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously
> > was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer
> > in those cases).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > v1 -> v2:
> >      * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct
> >        pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch.
>
> I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't
> apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree?

This is on top of
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/
which is not yet in any tree.

Sorry for the confusion.