On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:20:03PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote: > On 2025/2/10 23:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> It may cause firmware node reference's argument count out of range if > >> directly assign DT node reference's argument count to firmware's. > >> > >> drivers/of/property.c:of_fwnode_get_reference_args() is doing the direct > >> assignment, so may cause firmware's argument count @args->nargs got out > >> of range, namely, in [9, 16]. > >> > >> Fix by increasing NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS to 16 to meet DT requirement. ... > >> -#define NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS 8 > >> +#define NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS 16 > > Thinking of the case, perhaps you also want > > > > static_assert(NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS == MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS); > > > > to be put somewhere, but I don't think we can do it in this header file. > > thank you Andy for code review. > > yes. it seems there are good location to place the static_assert(). > > is it okay to associate two macros by > #define MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS I was thinking about this and I don't see how it can be done without introducing more chaos (dependency hell) into the headers. So, I won't take this path or even consider it deeper. > OR > replace all MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS instances with NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS > ? This sounds plausible to me, but you need a blessing from OF people as the naming may be a bit confusing (for them) as "phandle" is well established term in OF realm. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
