On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 22:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:23:37PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: >> > > > > 'data' here is private to the caller. So, I do not think we >> > > > > need to define the bits. Shall I change the name to >> > > > > 'driver_data' to make it more explicit? >> > > > >> > > > You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean >> > > > is_critical_error before. >> > > > >> > > > So you can just as well make it into flags and people can >> > > > extend those flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in >> > > > most cases anyway. If they really need driver_data, then they >> > > > can add a void *member. >> > > >> > > Hmm.. In patch 2, intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists() uses >> > > this field for PSS and PCC, which are enum values. I think we >> > > should allow drivers to set any values here. I agree that it may >> > > need to be void * if we also allow drivers to set a pointer here. >> > >> > Let's see what Rafael prefers. >> >> I would retain the is_critical_error field and use that for printing >> the recoverable / non-recoverable message. This is kind of >> orthogonal to whether or not any extra data is needed and that can be >> an additional field. In that case unsigned long should be sufficient >> to accommodate a pointer if need be. > > Yes, we will retain the field. The question is whether this field > should be retained as a driver's private data or ACPI-managed flags. Thanks for the clarification. > My patch implements the former, which lets the callers to define the > data values. For instance, acpi_blacklisted() uses this field as > is_critical_error value, and intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists() > uses it as oem_pwr_table value. > > Boris suggested the latter, which lets ACPI to define the flags, which > are then used by the callers. For instance, he suggested ACPI to > define bit0 as is_critical_error. > > #define ACPI_PLAT_IS_CRITICAL_ERROR BIT(0) So my point is that we can have both the ACPI-managed flags and the the caller-defined data at the same time as separate items. That would allow of maximum flexibility IMO. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
