linux/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c, branch v6.3

ACPI: processor: Replace deprecated CPU-hotplug functions

2021-08-04T18:25:54Z

The functions cpu_hotplug_begin, cpu_hotplug_done, get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus() have been deprecated during the CPU hotplug rework. They map directly to cpus_write_lock(), cpus_write_unlock, cpus_read_lock() and cpus_read_unlock(). Replace deprecated CPU-hotplug functions with the official version. The behavior remains unchanged. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

Merge branch 'acpi-misc'

2021-04-26T15:04:41Z

* acpi-misc: ACPI: dock: fix some coding style issues ACPI: sysfs: fix some coding style issues ACPI: PM: add a missed blank line after declarations ACPI: custom_method: fix a coding style issue ACPI: CPPC: fix some coding style issues ACPI: button: fix some coding style issues ACPI: battery: fix some coding style issues ACPI: acpi_pad: add a missed blank line after declarations ACPI: LPSS: add a missed blank line after declarations ACPI: ipmi: remove useless return statement for void function ACPI: processor: fix some coding style issues ACPI: APD: fix a block comment align issue ACPI: AC: fix some coding style issues ACPI: fix various typos in comments

ACPI: processor: fix some coding style issues

2021-04-08T14:27:02Z

Fix some coding style issues reported by checkpatch.pl, including the following types: ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible WARNING: Block comments use a trailing */ on a separate line WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations WARNING: labels should not be indented Signed-off-by: Xiaofei Tan Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: processor: Get rid of ACPICA message printing

2021-03-08T15:51:19Z

The ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() and ACPI_EXCEPTION() macros are used for message printing in the ACPICA code and they should not be used elsewhere. Special configuration (either kernel command line or sysfs-based) is needed to see the messages printed by them and the format of those messages is also special and convoluted. For this reason, replace all of the ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() and ACPI_EXCEPTION() instances in the ACPI processor driver with corresponding dev_*(), acpi_handle_*() and pr_*() calls depending on the context in which they appear. Also drop the ACPI_PROCESSOR_COMPONENT definition that is not going to be necessary any more. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo

ACPI: processor: remove comment regarding string _UID support

2020-10-16T16:11:27Z

ACPI 6.3 Errata A no longer allows _UID to return a string except for Itanium (for historical reasons) as stated in section 5.2.12: "From ACPI Specification 6.3 onward, all processor objects for all architectures except Itanium must now use Device() objects with an _HID of ACPI0007, and use only integer _UID values." Therefore, the "we don't handle string _UIDs yet" comment, which implies a missing feature, is redundant, so drop it. Signed-off-by: Alex Hung [ rjw: Subject and changelog edits ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: processor: Print more information when acpi_processor_evaluate_cst() fails

2020-09-21T16:24:35Z

Some platforms have bogus _CST which might cause unexpectd behavior in the CPU idle driver. Some bogus _CST might be unable to be disassembled by acpica-tools due to broken format. Print extra log if the _CST extraction/verification failes. This can be used to help narrow down why the CPU idle driver fails to behave as expected. Suggested-by: Zhang Rui Signed-off-by: Chen Yu [ rjw: Subject and changelog edits ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword

2020-07-09T12:09:28Z

Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary fall-through markings when it is the case. Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through # [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: processor: Export acpi_processor_evaluate_cst()

2019-12-27T10:02:07Z

The intel_idle driver will be modified to use ACPI _CST subsequently and it will need to call acpi_processor_evaluate_cst(), so move that function to acpi_processor.c so that it is always present (which is required by intel_idle) and export it to modules to allow the ACPI processor driver (which is modular) to call it. No intentional functional impact. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: processor: Export function to claim _CST control

2019-12-16T11:06:18Z

The intel_idle driver will be modified to use ACPI _CST subsequently and it will need to notify the platform firmware of that if acpi_gbl_FADT.cst_control is set, so add a routine for this purpose, acpi_processor_claim_cst_control(), to acpi_processor.c (so that it is always present which is required by intel_idle) and export it to allow the ACPI processor driver (which is modular) to call it. No intentional functional impact. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI / processor: don't print errors for processorIDs == 0xff

2019-08-09T08:48:34Z

Some platforms define their processors in this manner: Device (SCK0) { Name (_HID, "ACPI0004" /* Module Device */) // _HID: Hardware ID Name (_UID, "CPUSCK0") // _UID: Unique ID Processor (CP00, 0x00, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP01, 0x02, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP02, 0x04, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP03, 0x06, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP04, 0x01, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP05, 0x03, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP06, 0x05, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP07, 0x07, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP08, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP09, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP0A, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){} Processor (CP0B, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){} ... The processors marked as 0xff are invalid, there are only 8 of them in this case. So do not print an error on ids == 0xff, just print an info message. Actually, we could return ENODEV even on the first CPU with ID 0xff, but ACPI spec does not forbid the 0xff value to be a processor ID. Given 0xff could be a correct one, we would break working systems if we returned ENODEV. Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki