On 11/14/16 14:16, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 11/14/16 03:04, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 14-11-16 08:34, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> Hi Hans, Pantelis,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/16 18:15, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/16 07:42, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> From: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changesets are very powerful, but the lack of a helper API
>>>>>> makes using them cumbersome. Introduce a simple copy based
>>>>>> API that makes things considerably easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To wit, adding a property using the raw API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct property *prop;
>>>>>> prop = kzalloc(sizeof(*prop)), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> prop->name = kstrdup("compatible");
>>>>>> prop->value = kstrdup("foo,bar");
>>>>>> prop->length = strlen(prop->value) + 1;
>>>>>> of_changeset_add_property(ocs, np, prop);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while using the helper API
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of_changeset_add_property_string(ocs, np, "compatible",
>>>>>> "foo,bar");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes in v2 (hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx):
>>>>>> -Address review comments from:
>>>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2252845.html
>>>>>
>>>>> That points to the May 9 version 1 patches from Pantelis (as expected),
>>>>> but containing 4, not 2, patches. Patch 1/4 was applied. Patch 4/4
>>>>> seems to have disappeared?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pantelis then sent a version 2 set of the patches on May 16.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your version is a modification of the May 9 patches (as would be expected
>>>>> of a version 2). It is confusing to have two different version 2 patch
>>>>> sets. I don't have any brilliant ideas on how this patch set could have
>>>>> been named differently to avoid that confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of this little side-track is simply to note the existence of two
>>>>> different version 2 series so I won't be confused when I revisit this
>>>>> thread in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Simplify (and fix) __of_changeset_add_update_property_copy OOM handling
>>>>>> -Remove (by manual inlining) these 2 static helpers:
>>>>>> __of_changeset_add_update_property_u32
>>>>>> __of_changeset_add_update_property_bool
>>>>>> -Remove the following exported helper method:
>>>>>> of_changeset_node_move_to
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all comments were addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some other changes made that are not noted in the changelog.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still reading through the patches. I will reply again either with
>>>>> a reviewed-by or specific comments when I finish.
>>>>
>>>> Replying here for the entire patchset (there was no patch 0 to reply to).
>>>>
>>>> After reading through the patches, my reply is meta instead of specific
>>>> comments about the code.
>>>>
>>>> There are very few users of change sets in tree. I do not see the need to
>>>> add these helpers until such users are likely to appear.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect change sets to be _mostly_ used internally by the device tree
>>>> overlay framework, not directly by drivers. If change sets are an attractive
>>>> technology for drivers, I want to approach that usage very carefully to avoid
>>>> inappropriate use, which could be very difficult to reign in after the fact.
>>>>
>>>> Even if helpers should be added, this seems to be an overly complex approach.
>>>> If the need for these helpers becomes apparent I can provide review comments
>>>> with the specifics about how it appears to be overly complex.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please provide some more insights into the needs driving the desire
>>>> to have change set helpers and the expected use cases of them? Please put
>>>> your architect's hat on when replying to this question.
>>>
>>> My use case for this is discussed in this thread:
>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg536111.html
>>>
>>> With the dt-bindings for the hardware-manager I want to add here:
>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg536109.html
>>>
>>> Note that there is a lot of discussion in this thread whether or
>>> not this belongs in the kernel. I strongly believe though that
>>> some functionality like this will be needed in the kernel for
>>> ARM+dt devices going forward, just like there is plenty of x86
>>> code which adjusts itself to specific hardware, because whether
>>> we like it or not hardware (revisions) will always have quirks.
>>
>> Thanks! That context should have been provided with the patches.
>>
>> The use case discussion is important and I am paying a lot of
>> attention to that discussion and many other discussions about
>> dynamic device trees. I don't think it makes sense to apply the
>> change set helper patches yet, given the unsettled state of the
>> various dynamic device tree discussions.
>
> These helpers are useful and easier to use than the existing API
> independent of any issues to sort out with how we use overlays. So I
> plan to take them whether there's a user right away or not.
>
> Rob
OK, expect a more detailed review from me this week.
-Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
