On Wednesday 01 October 2014 04:10:03 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add a uniform interface by which device drivers can request device
> properties from the platform firmware by providing a property name
> and the corresponding data type. The purpose of it is to help to
> write portable code that won't depend on any particular platform
> firmware interface.
>
> Three general helper functions, device_get_property(),
> device_read_property() and device_read_property_array() are provided.
> The first one allows the raw value of a given device property to be
> accessed. The remaining two allow the value of a numeric or string
> property and multiple numeric or string values of one array
> property to be acquired, respectively. Static inline wrappers are also
> provided for the various property data types that can be passed to
> device_read_property() or device_read_property_array() for extra type
> checking.
These look great!
> In addition to that, new generic routines are provided for retrieving
> properties from device description objects in the platform firmware
> in case a device driver needs/wants to access properties of a child
> object of a given device object. There are cases in which there is
> no struct device representation of such child objects and this
> additional API is useful then. Again, three functions are provided,
> device_get_child_property(), device_read_child_property(),
> device_read_child_property_array(), in analogy with device_get_property(),
> device_read_property() and device_read_property_array() described above,
> respectively, along with static inline wrappers for all of the propery
> data types that can be used. For all of them, the first argument is
> a struct device pointer to the parent device object and the second
> argument is a (void *) pointer to the child description provided by
> the platform firmware (either ACPI or FDT).
I still have my reservations against the child accessors, and would
like to hear what other people think. Passing a void pointer rather
than struct fw_dev_node has both advantages and disadvantages, and
I won't complain about either one if enough other people on the DT
side would like to see the addition of the child functions.
> Finally, device_for_each_child_node() is added for iterating over
> the children of the device description object associated with a
> given device.
>
> The interface covers both ACPI and Device Trees.
>
> This change set includes material from Mika Westerberg and Aaron Lu.
>
Regarding device_for_each_child_node(), the syntax is inconsistent
with what we normally use, which can probably be changed. All of the
DT for_each_* helpers are macros that are used like
struct device *dev = ...;
void *child; /* iterator */
device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) {
u32 something;
device_child_property_read_u32(dev, child, "propname", &something);
do_something(dev, something);
}
If we get a consensus on having the child interfaces, I'd rather see
them done this way than with a callback pointer, for consistency
reasons.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
