From patchwork Thu Apr 18 13:54:04 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 13634813 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D0C16132C; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713448703; cv=none; b=ZT8sr2TIW85Ug7iLo4Piko35JVZP4krV9Fo9b1rD+U+XKsiYR0qQWDCdd/wVcwLPqLe7SzYxRXjCdkUbaUDtuBk8fxjBk29whxnXf+JAjlJ56/lrbiJpfIenkAdYVj4nd2N0yhBXxLD+kuWJyGVynyAYpLbqb5Sol/jb/1A/B24= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713448703; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wl9+LyQkX3DiNMZ2z0Jwgdr8/XJ0rkH2r7mPv0GPPQ0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Vfg3FDEGS/7uxhnKetjiqpG69BGHiF2DFeo751j92sqvl6E6JfWdlxM+VpAPtWvKGd1wQR/oYWLopYPuCXBd5Dxp9KtDATHupMcpERxFcwuwoyHKQQd+vL6YYK4ov2SNMFu6lQSdb6H01i+lqfG8fuSThh/ji6xvrYLJlTgpWfc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VKzp83NpPz6K6T1; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:56:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3877B1400CD; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:58:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from SecurePC-101-06.china.huawei.com (10.122.247.231) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:58:19 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , , , , , , , , , Russell King , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon CC: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , , Subject: [PATCH v7 08/16] ACPI: Add post_eject to struct acpi_scan_handler for cpu hotplug Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20240418135412.14730-9-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240418135412.14730-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20240418135412.14730-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.241) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) From: James Morse struct acpi_scan_handler has a detach callback that is used to remove a driver when a bus is changed. When interacting with an eject-request, the detach callback is called before _EJ0. This means the ACPI processor driver can't use _STA to determine if a CPU has been made not-present, or some of the other _STA bits have been changed. acpi_processor_remove() needs to know the value of _STA after _EJ0 has been called. Add a post_eject callback to struct acpi_scan_handler. This is called after acpi_scan_hot_remove() has successfully called _EJ0. Because acpi_scan_check_and_detach() also clears the handler pointer, it needs to be told if the caller will go on to call acpi_bus_post_eject(), so that acpi_device_clear_enumerated() and clearing the handler pointer can be deferred. An extra flag is added to flags field introduced in the previous patch to achieve this. Signed-off-by: James Morse Reviewed-by: Joanthan Cameron Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan Tested-by: Miguel Luis Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri Tested-by: Jianyong Wu Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron ---- v7: - No change. v6: - Switch to flags. Russell, you hadn't signed off on this when posting last time. Do you want to insert a suitable tag now? v5: - Rebase to take into account the changes to scan handling in the meantime. Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo --- drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++-- drivers/acpi/scan.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c index 4e65011e706c..beb1761db579 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c @@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device, #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU /* Removal */ -static void acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device) +static void acpi_processor_post_eject(struct acpi_device *device) { struct acpi_processor *pr; @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ static struct acpi_scan_handler processor_handler = { .ids = processor_device_ids, .attach = acpi_processor_add, #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU - .detach = acpi_processor_remove, + .post_eject = acpi_processor_post_eject, #endif .hotplug = { .enabled = true, diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c index 1ec9677e6c2d..3ec54624664a 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ static int acpi_scan_try_to_offline(struct acpi_device *device) } #define ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_STATUS BIT(0) +#define ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_EJECT BIT(1) static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p) { @@ -273,8 +274,6 @@ static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p) if (handler) { if (handler->detach) handler->detach(adev); - - adev->handler = NULL; } else { device_release_driver(&adev->dev); } @@ -284,6 +283,28 @@ static int acpi_scan_check_and_detach(struct acpi_device *adev, void *p) */ acpi_device_set_power(adev, ACPI_STATE_D3_COLD); adev->flags.initialized = false; + + /* For eject this is deferred to acpi_bus_post_eject() */ + if (!(flags & ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_EJECT)) { + adev->handler = NULL; + acpi_device_clear_enumerated(adev); + } + return 0; +} + +static int acpi_bus_post_eject(struct acpi_device *adev, void *not_used) +{ + struct acpi_scan_handler *handler = adev->handler; + + acpi_dev_for_each_child_reverse(adev, acpi_bus_post_eject, NULL); + + if (handler) { + if (handler->post_eject) + handler->post_eject(adev); + + adev->handler = NULL; + } + acpi_device_clear_enumerated(adev); return 0; @@ -301,6 +322,7 @@ static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device) acpi_handle handle = device->handle; unsigned long long sta; acpi_status status; + uintptr_t flags = ACPI_SCAN_CHECK_FLAG_EJECT; if (device->handler && device->handler->hotplug.demand_offline) { if (!acpi_scan_is_offline(device, true)) @@ -313,7 +335,7 @@ static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device) acpi_handle_debug(handle, "Ejecting\n"); - acpi_bus_trim(device); + acpi_scan_check_and_detach(device, (void *)flags); acpi_evaluate_lck(handle, 0); /* @@ -336,6 +358,8 @@ static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device) } else if (sta & ACPI_STA_DEVICE_ENABLED) { acpi_handle_warn(handle, "Eject incomplete - status 0x%llx\n", sta); + } else { + acpi_bus_post_eject(device, NULL); } return 0; diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h index e7796f373d0d..51a4b936f19e 100644 --- a/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ struct acpi_scan_handler { bool (*match)(const char *idstr, const struct acpi_device_id **matchid); int (*attach)(struct acpi_device *dev, const struct acpi_device_id *id); void (*detach)(struct acpi_device *dev); + void (*post_eject)(struct acpi_device *dev); void (*bind)(struct device *phys_dev); void (*unbind)(struct device *phys_dev); struct acpi_hotplug_profile hotplug;