On 2025/2/11 20:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> -#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. > i have confirmed that: of.h includes fwnode.h indirectly fwnode.h does not include of.h directly or indirectly in theory, dependency between both headers should also be like this. So, it is simple to use below define in of.h #define MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS >> 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. phandle is a type of DT firmware node reference. so this solution seems suitable as well. struct software_node_ref_args also uses NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS directly. let us wait for more comments.
