Re: [PATCH v13 09/12] ACPI: x86: s2idle: Add a function to get constraints for a device

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 05:38:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 4:04 PM Mario Limonciello
> <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 8/18/2023 05:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:31:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 7:15 AM Mario Limonciello
> > >> <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> > >> I think that some overhead would be reduced below if this were taking
> > >> a struct acpi_device pointer as the argument.
> > >
> > > Hmm... Either you need a pointer to handle, which involves pointer arithmetics
> > > or something else. I would believe if you tell that ACPI handle should be passed,
> > > but current suggestion is not obvious to me how it may help.
> >
> > To Rafael's point about overhead there are potentially "less" calls into
> > acpi_get_lps0_constraint if it's a 'struct acpi_device' pointer because
> > it won't be called by caller for any devices that don't have an ACPI
> > companion.
> >
> > >>> +       struct lpi_constraints *entry;
> > >>> +
> > >>> +       for_each_lpi_constraint(entry) {
> > >>> +               if (!device_match_acpi_handle(dev, entry->handle))
> > >
> > > Here we retrieve handle...
> 
> Which uses ACPI_HANDLE() to retrieve the companion ACPI handle for
> dev. This checks dev against NULL and then passes it to
> ACPI_COMPANION() which resolves to to_acpi_device_node() on the dev's
> fwnode field and that involves an is_acpi_device_node() check and some
> pointer arithmetic via container_of().  Of course, this needs to be
> done in every iteration of the loop until a matching handle is found
> (or not), and because dev is always the same, the result of this will
> be the same every time. If this is not pointless overhead then I'm not
> quite sure how to call it.
> 
> Now, if struct acpi_device *adev is passed as the argument, the check
> above reduces to (adev->handle == entry->handle) which is much more
> straightforward IMV.

Yes, this is fine, and if we move out dev_dbg() call, the suggestion makes
even more sense. I agree with your arguments.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko