diff mbox series

[v1,1/4] ACPI: scan: Fix device check notification handling

Message ID 4886572.GXAFRqVoOG@kreacher
State New
Headers
Series ACPI: scan: Check enabled _STA bit on Bus/Device Checks |

Commit Message

Rafael J. Wysocki Feb. 21, 2024, 8:01 p.m. UTC 
  From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

It is generally invalid to fail a Device Check notification if the scan
handler has not been attached to the given device after a bus rescan,
because there may be valid reasons for the scan handler to refuse
attaching to the device (for example, the device is not ready).

For this reason, modify acpi_scan_device_check() to return 0 in that
case without printing a warning.

While at it, reduce the log level of the "already enumerated" message
in the same function, because it is only interesting when debugging
notification handling

Fixes: 443fc8202272 ("ACPI / hotplug: Rework generic code to handle suprise removals")
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/scan.c |    8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Jonathan Cameron Feb. 22, 2024, 6:50 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:01:02 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:

> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> It is generally invalid to fail a Device Check notification if the scan
> handler has not been attached to the given device after a bus rescan,
> because there may be valid reasons for the scan handler to refuse
> attaching to the device (for example, the device is not ready).
> 
> For this reason, modify acpi_scan_device_check() to return 0 in that
> case without printing a warning.
> 
> While at it, reduce the log level of the "already enumerated" message
> in the same function, because it is only interesting when debugging
> notification handling
> 
> Fixes: 443fc8202272 ("ACPI / hotplug: Rework generic code to handle suprise removals")
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Seems reasonable to me.  Not sure it fixes any bugs anyone has seen
in the wild though. I'd not give it a fixes tag without such a
known case, but your subsystem so fair enough!

Thanks for resolving how to handle the processor case.

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c |    8 ++------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -314,18 +314,14 @@ static int acpi_scan_device_check(struct
>  		 * again).
>  		 */
>  		if (adev->handler) {
> -			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Already enumerated\n");
> -			return -EALREADY;
> +			dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "Already enumerated\n");
> +			return 0;
>  		}
>  		error = acpi_bus_scan(adev->handle);
>  		if (error) {
>  			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Namespace scan failure\n");
>  			return error;
>  		}
> -		if (!adev->handler) {
> -			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Enumeration failure\n");
> -			error = -ENODEV;
> -		}
>  	} else {
>  		error = acpi_scan_device_not_enumerated(adev);
>  	}
> 
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
@@ -314,18 +314,14 @@  static int acpi_scan_device_check(struct
 		 * again).
 		 */
 		if (adev->handler) {
-			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Already enumerated\n");
-			return -EALREADY;
+			dev_dbg(&adev->dev, "Already enumerated\n");
+			return 0;
 		}
 		error = acpi_bus_scan(adev->handle);
 		if (error) {
 			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Namespace scan failure\n");
 			return error;
 		}
-		if (!adev->handler) {
-			dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Enumeration failure\n");
-			error = -ENODEV;
-		}
 	} else {
 		error = acpi_scan_device_not_enumerated(adev);
 	}