Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Current acpiphp_check_bridge() implementation is pretty dumb:
> > - it enables the slot if it's not enabled and the slot status is
> > ACPI_STA_ALL;
> > - it disables the slot if it's enabled and slot is not in ACPI_STA_ALL
> > state.
> >
> > This behavior is not enough to handle Thunderbolt chaining case
> > properly. We need to actually rescan for new devices even if a device
> > has already in the slot.
> >
> > The new implementation disables and stops the slot if it's not in
> > ACPI_STA_ALL state.
> >
> > For ACPI_STA_ALL state we first trim devices which don't respond and
> > look for the ones after that. We do that even if slot already enabled
> > (SLOT_ENABLED).
>
> Just a couple of nitpicks below.
>
> > list_for_each_entry(slot, &bridge->slots, node) {
> > + struct pci_bus *bus = slot->bridge->pci_bus;
> > + struct pci_dev *dev, *tmp;
> > + int retval;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&slot->crit_sect);
>
> Does it make sense to introduce a helper let's say
> __acpiphp_check_slot() and put there all lines inside this mutex?
No. Why?
> > + if (get_slot_status(slot) == ACPI_STA_ALL) {
> > + /* remove stale devices if any */
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp,
> > + &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> > + if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) != slot->device)
> > + continue;
> > + pci_trim_stale_devices(dev);
>
> Perhaps
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) == slot->device)
> pci_trim_stale_devices(dev);
> }
Makes sense, thanks.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
