Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] thunderbolt: ACPI: Replace tb_acpi_find_port() with acpi_find_child_by_adr()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi Mika,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:07 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:11:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Use acpi_find_child_by_adr() to find the child matching a given bus
> > address instead of tb_acpi_find_port() that walks the list of children
> > of an ACPI device directly for this purpose and drop the latter.
> >
> > Apart from simplifying the code, this will help to eliminate the
> > children list head from struct acpi_device as it is redundant and it
> > is used in questionable ways in some places (in particular, locking is
> > needed for walking the list pointed to it safely, but it is often
> > missing).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > v1 -> v2:
> >    * Drop tb_acpi_find_port() (Heikki, Andy).
> >    * Change the subject accordingly
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c |   27 ++++-----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/thunderbolt/acpi.c
> > @@ -301,26 +301,6 @@ static bool tb_acpi_bus_match(struct dev
> >       return tb_is_switch(dev) || tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev);
> >  }
> >
> > -static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_port(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > -                                          const struct tb_port *port)
> > -{
> > -     struct acpi_device *port_adev;
> > -
> > -     if (!adev)
> > -             return NULL;
> > -
> > -     /*
> > -      * Device routers exists under the downstream facing USB4 port
> > -      * of the parent router. Their _ADR is always 0.
> > -      */
> > -     list_for_each_entry(port_adev, &adev->children, node) {
> > -             if (acpi_device_adr(port_adev) == port->port)
> > -                     return port_adev;
> > -     }
> > -
> > -     return NULL;
> > -}
> > -
> >  static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(struct tb_switch *sw)
> >  {
> >       struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> > @@ -331,7 +311,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_switc
> >               struct tb_port *port = tb_port_at(tb_route(sw), parent_sw);
> >               struct acpi_device *port_adev;
> >
> > -             port_adev = tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev), port);
> > +             port_adev = acpi_find_child_by_adr(ACPI_COMPANION(&parent_sw->dev),
> > +                                                port->port);
> >               if (port_adev)
> >                       adev = acpi_find_child_device(port_adev, 0, false);
> >       } else {
> > @@ -364,8 +345,8 @@ static struct acpi_device *tb_acpi_find_
> >       if (tb_is_switch(dev))
> >               return tb_acpi_switch_find_companion(tb_to_switch(dev));
> >       else if (tb_is_usb4_port_device(dev))
> > -             return tb_acpi_find_port(ACPI_COMPANION(dev->parent),
> > -                                      tb_to_usb4_port_device(dev)->port);
>
> Can you move the above comment here too?

Do you mean to move the comment from tb_acpi_find_port() right here or
before the if (tb_is_switch(dev)) line above?

I think that tb_acpi_switch_find_companion() would be a better place
for that comment.  At least it would match the code passing 0 to
acpi_find_child_device() in there.

> Otherwise looks good to me,
>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > +             return acpi_find_child_by_adr(ACPI_COMPANION(dev->parent),
> > +                                           tb_to_usb4_port_device(dev)->port->port);
> >       return NULL;
> >  }

Thanks!