Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] ACPI / scan: Initialize status to ACPI_STA_DEFAULT

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 09-08-18 11:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Since commit 63347db0affa ("ACPI / scan: Use acpi_bus_get_status() to
> > initialize ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE devs") the status field of normal acpi_devices
> > gets set to 0 by acpi_bus_type_and_status() and filled with its actual
> > value later when acpi_add_single_object() calls acpi_bus_get_status().
> >
> > This means that any acpi_match_device_ids() calls in between will always
> > fail with -ENOENT.
> >
> > We already have a workaround for this, which temporary forces status to
> > ACPI_STA_DEFAULT in drivers/acpi/x86/utils.c: acpi_device_always_present()
> > and the next commit in this series adds another acpi_match_device_ids()
> > call between status being initialized as 0 and the acpi_bus_get_status()
> > call.
> >
> > Rather then adding another workaround, this commit makes
> > acpi_bus_type_and_status() initialize status to ACPI_STA_DEFAULT, this is
> > safe to do as the only code looking at status between the initialization
> > and the acpi_bus_get_status() call is those acpi_match_device_ids() calls.
> >
> > Note this does mean that we need to (re)set status to 0 in case the
> > acpi_bus_get_status() call fails.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > -New patch in v3 of this patch-set
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> > -This is not a fix for acpi_is_indirect_io_slave() as I thought at first,
> >   acpi_is_indirect_io_slave() calls acpi_match_device_ids() on its parent
> >   device, where status is already set properly. Rewrite the commit message
> >   accordingly.
>
> I've applied the v4 of this patch and I don't think there are any
> changes from it here.

Correct, there were only changes to the 4th patch in the series.

> As for the rest of the series I'll wait from comments from Wolfram and
> the other reviewers.

Ok, note if you've taken patch 1 you may also want to take patch 3 which
is an ACPI code cleanup made possible by patch 1 and otherwise is
unrelated.

Regards,

Hans