The platform used LPI need check if the LPI support and the entry
method is valid by the acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(). But the return
of acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() in acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev()
isn't verified by any caller.

What's more, acpi_processor_get_power_info() is a more logical place for
verifying the validity of FFH LPI than acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev().
So move acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() from the latter to the former and
verify its return.

Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 5f86297c8b23..cdf86874a87a 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev(struct acpi_processor *pr,
 
 	dev->cpu = pr->id;
 	if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
-		return acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
+		return 0;
 
 	acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
 	return 0;
@@ -1264,7 +1264,13 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
 
 	ret = acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(pr);
 	if (ret)
-		ret = acpi_processor_get_cstate_info(pr);
+		return acpi_processor_get_cstate_info(pr);
+
+	if (pr->flags.has_lpi) {
+		ret = acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
+		if (ret)
+			pr_err("Processor FFH LPI state is invalid.\n");
+	}
 
 	return ret;
 }
-- 
2.33.0