acpi_spmc(4): Factor out testing for present DSMs/functions
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by olce on Thu, May 7, 8:18 PM.

Details

Reviewers

obiwac

Commits

rGba4f05b55fb4: acpi_spmc(4): Factor out testing for present DSMs/functions

Summary

Since we are now keeping in the softc the information about which DSM
functions are available (in supported_functions[]), the 'dsms' field
there is somewhat redundant.

Make it completely redundant by keeping the bit representing the
enumeration function itself in each element of supported_functions[],
and then remove the field.

As a result, convert has_dsm() to rely on supports_function().

Adapt acpi_spmc_dsm_check_functions() so that it does not take into
account the enumeration function bit.

While here, use the self-explanatory stance
IDX_TO_BIT(DSM_ENUM_FUNCTIONS) instead of a hardcoded 1.

Diff Detail

Repository

rG FreeBSD src repository

Lint

Lint Skipped

Unit

Tests Skipped

Build Status

Buildable 72907
Build 69790: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

olce created this revision.Thu, May 7, 8:18 PM

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptThu, May 7, 8:18 PM

olce requested review of this revision.Thu, May 7, 8:18 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B72907: Diff 177412.Thu, May 7, 8:18 PM

olce added a parent revision: D56877: acpi_spmc(4): acpi_spmc_run_dsm(): Rename, rename parameters, constify.Thu, May 7, 8:19 PM

olce added a child revision: D56879: acpi_spmc(4): Only run DSM functions reported present.

yeah, this logic is much better

sys/dev/acpica/acpi_spmc.c
245–260	can we just move these functions in the revision they were added? esp since at least `supports_function()` will have more history than just the commit in which it was added, which we'd thus lose in a blame
387–389	i remember this was moved in a revision somewhere down the stack, and here it's just being moved back. Can we just not move it in that revision?

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, May 11, 9:28 AM

olce marked 2 inline comments as done.Mon, May 11, 12:42 PM

olce added inline comments.

sys/dev/acpica/acpi_spmc.c
245–260	Sure.
387–389	Yes. I moved the `KASSERT()` to be closer to the first use assuming the checked invariant, which causes it to move back and forth. Will remove that.