On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:58:40PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:43:26AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:19:01PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > From: Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > fwnode_get_reference_args() which is common for both DT and ACPI passes > > > a property name like #mbox-cells which needs to be fetched from the > > > reference node to determine the number of arguments needed for the > > > property. However, the ACPI version of this function doesn't support > > > this and simply ignores the parameter passed from the wrapper function. > > > Add support for dynamically finding number of arguments by reading the > > > nargs property value. Update the callers to pass extra parameter. > > > > I don't like this (implementation). > > Agree. > > > It seems that we basically have two parameters which values are duplicating > > each other. This is error prone API and confusing in the cases when both are > > defined. If you want property, add a new API that takes const char *nargs > > and relies on the property be present. > > Also this is not really needed for ACPI case because it has types so it can > distinguish references from integer. Having separate property for this just > makes things more complex than they need to be IMHO. Thanks! Andy and Mika for your kind feedback. I agree that having both property name and nargs is confusing and also ACPI would not need nargs_prop. In fact, I think ACPI doesn't need even nargs integer value as well from the caller since all integers after the reference are counted as arguments. However, the issue is acpi_get_ref_args() assumes that caller passes valid num_args. But typically the common fwnode_property_get_reference_args() doesn't usually pass both valid values. So, should fwnode_property_get_reference_args() pass both nargs_prop (for DT) and nargs (for ACPI). Or do you mean it is better to remove the check for num_args in the loop inside acpi_get_ref_args() function? Thanks, Sunil
