[PATCH v7 03/16] ACPI: processor: Drop duplicated check on _STA (enabled + present)

Hanjun Guo guohanjun at huawei.com
Tue Apr 23 04:13:46 PDT 2024


On 2024/4/23 17:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:49 AM Hanjun Guo <guohanjun at huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024/4/18 21:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> The ACPI bus scan will only result in acpi_processor_add() being called
>>> if _STA has already been checked and the result is that the
>>> processor is enabled and present.  Hence drop this additional check.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael at kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron at huawei.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v7: No change
>>> v6: New patch to drop this unnecessary code. Now I think we only
>>>       need to explicitly read STA to print a warning in the ARM64
>>>       arch_unregister_cpu() path where we want to know if the
>>>       present bit has been unset as well.
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 6 ------
>>>    1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> index 7fc924aeeed0..ba0a6f0ac841 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> @@ -186,17 +186,11 @@ static void __init acpi_pcc_cpufreq_init(void) {}
>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
>>>    static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>>    {
>>> -     unsigned long long sta;
>>> -     acpi_status status;
>>>        int ret;
>>>
>>>        if (invalid_phys_cpuid(pr->phys_id))
>>>                return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> -     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(pr->handle, "_STA", NULL, &sta);
>>> -     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || !(sta & ACPI_STA_DEVICE_PRESENT))
>>> -             return -ENODEV;
>>> -
>>>        cpu_maps_update_begin();
>>>        cpus_write_lock();
>>
>> Since the status bits were checked before acpi_processor_add() being
>> called, do we need to remove the if (!acpi_device_is_enabled(device))
>> check in acpi_processor_add() as well?
> 
> No, because its caller only checks the present bit.  The function
> itself checks the enabled bit.

Thanks for the pointer, I can see the detail in the acpi_bus_attach()
now,

Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun at huawei.com>

Thanks
Hanjun



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list