Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] ACPI: bus: Make notify wrappers more generic

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:27 PM Wilczynski, Michal
<michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/5/2023 7:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 5:30:59 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:05 PM Wilczynski, Michal
> >> <michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 10/5/2023 12:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:10 AM Wilczynski, Michal
> >>>> <michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> [cut]
> >>
> >>>>>> That said, why exactly is it better to use acpi_handle instead of a
> >>>>>> struct acpi_device pointer?
> >>>>> I wanted to make the wrapper as close as possible to the wrapped function.
> >>>>> This way it would be easier to remove it in the future i.e if we ever deem
> >>>>> extra synchronization not worth it etc. What the ACPICA function need to
> >>>>> install a wrapper is a handle not a pointer to a device.
> >>>>> So there is no need for a middle man.
> >>>> Taking a struct acpi_device pointer as the first argument is part of
> >>>> duplication reduction, however, because in the most common case it
> >>>> saves the users of it the need to dereference the struct acpi_device
> >>>> they get from ACPI_COMPANION() in order to obtain the handle.
> >>> User don't even have to use acpi device anywhere, as he can choose
> >>> to use ACPI_HANDLE() instead on 'struct device*' and never interact
> >>> with acpi device directly.
> >> Have you actually looked at this macro?  It is a wrapper around
> >> ACPI_COMPANION().
> >>
> >> So they may think that they don't use struct acpi_device pointers, but
> >> in fact they do.
> >>
> >>>> Arguably, acpi_handle is an ACPICA concept and it is better to reduce
> >>>> its usage outside ACPICA.
> >>> Use of acpi_handle is deeply entrenched in the kernel. There is even
> >>> a macro ACPI_HANDLE() that returns acpi_handle. I would say it's
> >>> way too late to limit it to ACPICA internal code.
> >> So there is a difference between "limiting to ACPICA" and "reducing".
> >> It cannot be limited to ACPICA, because the code outside ACPICA needs
> >> to evaluate ACPI objects sometimes and ACPI handles are needed for
> >> that.
> >>
> >> And this observation doesn't invalidate the point.
> >>
> >>>>>> Realistically, in a platform driver you'll need the latter to obtain
> >>>>>> the former anyway.
> >>>>> I don't want to introduce arbitrary limitations where they are not necessary.
> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean.  This patch is changing existing functions.
> >>> That's true, but those functions aren't yet deeply entrenched in the
> >>> kernel yet, so in my view how they should look like should still be
> >>> a subject for discussion, as for now they're only used locally in
> >>> drivers/acpi, and my next patchset, that would remove .notify in
> >>> platform directory would spread them more, and would
> >>> make them harder to change. For now we can change how they
> >>> work pretty painlessly.
> >> I see no particular reason to do that, though.
> >>
> >> What specifically is a problem with passing struct acpi_device
> >> pointers to the wrappers?  I don't see any TBH.
> >>
> >>>>> It is often the case that driver allocates it's own private struct using kmalloc
> >>>>> family of functions, and that structure already contains everything that is
> >>>>> needed to remove the handler, so why force ? There are already examples
> >>>>> in the drivers that do that i.e in acpi_video the function
> >>>>> acpi_video_dev_add_notify_handler() uses raw ACPICA handler to install
> >>>>> a notify handler and it passes private structure there.
> >>>>> So there is value in leaving the choice of an actual type to the user of the
> >>>>> API.
> >>>> No, if the user has a pointer to struct acpi_device already, there is
> >>>> no difference between passing this and passing the acpi_handle from it
> >>>> except for the extra dereference in the latter case.
> >>> Dereference would happen anyway in the wrapper, and it doesn't cause
> >>> any harm anyway for readability in my opinion. And of course you don't
> >>> have to use acpi device at all, you can use ACPI_HANDLE() macro.
> >> So one can use ACPI_COMPANION() just as well and it is slightly less overhead.
> >>
> >>>> If the user doesn't have a struct acpi_device pointer, let them use
> >>>> the raw ACPICA handler directly and worry about the synchronization
> >>>> themselves.
> >>> As mentioned acpi_device pointer is not really required to use the wrapper.
> >>> Instead we can use ACPI_HANDLE() macro directly. Look at the usage of
> >>> the wrapper in the AC driver [1].
> >> You don't really have to repeat the same argument  several times and I
> >> know how ACPI_HANDLE() works.  Also I don't like some of the things
> >> done by this patch.
> >>
> >> Whoever uses ACPI_HANDLE(), they also use ACPI_COMPANION() which is
> >> hidden in the former.
> >>
> >> If they don't need to store either the acpi_handle or the struct
> >> acpi_device pointer, there is no reason at all to use the former
> >> instead of the latter.
> >>
> >> If they get an acpi_handle from somewhere else than ACPI_HANDLE(),
> >> then yes, they would need to get the ACPI devices from there (which is
> >> possible still), but they may be better off by using the raw ACPICA
> >> interface for events in that case.
> >>
> >>> -static void acpi_ac_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>> +static void acpi_ac_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>  {
> >>> -       struct acpi_ac *ac = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >>> +      struct acpi_ac *ac = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >>>
> >>> -       acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(device->handle, ACPI_ALL_NOTIFY,
> >>> +       acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(ACPI_HANDLE(ac->dev),
> >>> +                                                                     ACPI_ALL_NOTIFY,
> >>>                                                                        acpi_ac_notify);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230925144842.586829-1-michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mff1e8ce1e548b3252d896b56d3be0b1028b7402e
> >>>
> >>>> The wrappers are there to cover the most common case, not to cover all cases.
> >>> In general all drivers that I'm modifying would benefit from not using direct ACPICA
> >>> installers/removers by saving that extra synchronization code that would need to be
> >>> provided otherwise, and not having to deal with acpi_status codes.
> >> Yes, that's the common case.
> >>
> >>>>> To summarize:
> >>>>> I would say the wrappers are mostly unnecessary, but they actually save
> >>>>> some duplicate code in the drivers, so I decided to leave them, as I don't
> >>>>> want to introduce duplicate code if I can avoid that.
> >>>> What duplicate code do you mean, exactly?
> >>> I would need to declare extra acpi_status variable and use ACPI_FAILURE macro
> >>> in each usage of the direct ACPICA installer. Also I would need to call
> >>> acpi_os_wait_events_complete() after calling each direct remove.
> >> I thought you meant some code duplication related to passing struct
> >> acpi_device pointers to the wrappers, but we agree that the wrappers
> >> are generally useful.
> >>
> >>>> IMV you haven't really explained why this particular patch is
> >>>> necessary or even useful.
> >>> Maybe using an example would better illustrate my point.
> >>> Consider using NFIT driver modification later in this series as an example:
> >>>
> >>> 1) With old wrapper it would look:
> >>>
> >>>  static void acpi_nfit_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
> >>> {
> >>>     struct acpi_device *adev = data;
> >>>     /* Now we need to figure how to get a 'struct device*' from an acpi_device.
> >>>          Mind this we can't just do &adev->dev, as we're not using that device anymore.
> >>>          We need to get a struct device that's embedded in the platform_device that the
> >>>          driver was instantiated with.
> >>>          Not sure how it would look like, but it would require are least one extra line here.
> >>>      */
> >>>     device_lock(dev);
> >>>     __acpi_nfit_notify(dev, handle, event);
> >>>     device_unlock(dev);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> 2) With new wrapper:
> >>>
> >>> static void acpi_nfit_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
> >>> {
> >>>     struct device *dev = data;
> >>>
> >>>     device_lock(dev);
> >>>     __acpi_nfit_notify(dev, handle, event);
> >>>     device_unlock(dev);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So essentially arbitrarily forcing user to use wrapper that takes acpi device
> >>> as an argument may unnecessarily increase drivers complexity, and if we
> >>> can help with then we should. That's why this commit exists.
> >> Well, I know what's going on now.
> >>
> >> You really want to add a context argument to
> >> acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(), which is quite reasonable, but then
> >> you don't have to change the first argument of it.
> >>
> >> I'll send you my version of this patch later today and we'll see.
> > See below.
> >
> > It just adds a context argument to acpi_dev_install_notify_handler() without
> > making the other changes made by the original patch that are rather pointless
> > IMO.
>
> Thank you !
> I think it's fine will include this in next revision.

Sounds good, thanks!

> >
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH v1 1/9] ACPI: bus: Add context argument to acpi_dev_install_notify_handler()
> >
> > Add void *context arrgument to the list of arguments of
> > acpi_dev_install_notify_handler() and modify it to pass that argument
> > as context to acpi_install_notify_handler() instead of its first
> > argument which is problematic in general (for example, if platform
> > drivers used it, they would rather get struct platform_device pointers
> > or pointers to their private data from the context arguments of their
> > notify handlers).
> >
> > Make all of the current callers of acpi_dev_install_notify_handler()
> > take this change into account so as to avoid altering the general
> > functionality.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/ac.c         |    2 +-
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c |    2 +-
> >  drivers/acpi/battery.c    |    2 +-
> >  drivers/acpi/bus.c        |    4 ++--
> >  drivers/acpi/hed.c        |    2 +-
> >  drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c  |    2 +-
> >  drivers/acpi/thermal.c    |    2 +-
> >  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h   |    2 +-
> >  8 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/ac.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/ac.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/ac.c
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int acpi_ac_add(struct acpi_devic
> >       register_acpi_notifier(&ac->battery_nb);
> >
> >       result = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_ALL_NOTIFY,
> > -                                              acpi_ac_notify);
> > +                                              acpi_ac_notify, device);
> >       if (result)
> >               goto err_unregister;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_video.c
> > @@ -2062,7 +2062,7 @@ static int acpi_video_bus_add(struct acp
> >               goto err_del;
> >
> >       error = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > -                                             acpi_video_bus_notify);
> > +                                             acpi_video_bus_notify, device);
> >       if (error)
> >               goto err_remove;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/battery.c
> > @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_
> >       device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, 1);
> >
> >       result = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_ALL_NOTIFY,
> > -                                              acpi_battery_notify);
> > +                                              acpi_battery_notify, device);
> >       if (result)
> >               goto fail_pm;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > @@ -556,12 +556,12 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_ha
> >
> >  int acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >                                   u32 handler_type,
> > -                                 acpi_notify_handler handler)
> > +                                 acpi_notify_handler handler, void *context)
> >  {
> >       acpi_status status;
> >
> >       status = acpi_install_notify_handler(adev->handle, handler_type,
> > -                                          handler, adev);
> > +                                          handler, context);
> >       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >               return -ENODEV;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/hed.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/hed.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/hed.c
> > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static int acpi_hed_add(struct acpi_devi
> >       hed_handle = device->handle;
> >
> >       err = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > -                                           acpi_hed_notify);
> > +                                           acpi_hed_notify, device);
> >       if (err)
> >               hed_handle = NULL;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > @@ -3391,7 +3391,7 @@ static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_dev
> >               return rc;
> >
> >       rc = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(adev, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > -                                          acpi_nfit_notify);
> > +                                          acpi_nfit_notify, adev);
> >       if (rc)
> >               return rc;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> > @@ -936,7 +936,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_
> >               acpi_device_bid(device), deci_kelvin_to_celsius(tz->temp_dk));
> >
> >       result = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > -                                              acpi_thermal_notify);
> > +                                              acpi_thermal_notify, device);
> >       if (result)
> >               goto flush_wq;
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ int acpi_bus_attach_private_data(acpi_ha
> >  void acpi_bus_detach_private_data(acpi_handle);
> >  int acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >                                   u32 handler_type,
> > -                                 acpi_notify_handler handler);
> > +                                 acpi_notify_handler handler, void *context);
> >  void acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >                                   u32 handler_type,
> >                                   acpi_notify_handler handler);
> >
> >
> >
>