On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/12/2017 05:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/2017 11:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> [cut] > > > (trimming list) > > >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What about converting this to using struct fwnode instead of adding >>>>>> fields to it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't really want to add another field here, but I've also pointed >>>>> out >>>>> how I thought converting it to a fwnode wasn't a good choice. >>>>> >>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/502 >>>>> >>>>> Mostly because IMHO its even more misleading (lacking any >>>>> fwnode_operations) >>>>> than misusing the of_node as a void *. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> Converting the DT drivers/cacheinfo.c code to use a fwnode_handle is >>> straightforward. But IMHO it doesn't solve the readability problem of >>> either >>> casting the ACPI/PPTT token directly to the resulting fwnode_handle *, or >>> alternatively an actual fwnode_handle with bogus fwnode_operations to >>> wrap >>> that token. >> >> >> I'm not talking about that at all. >> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the idea is to have one pointer in there instead of two that >>>> cannot be used at the same time and there's no reason why of_node >>>> should be special. >>> >>> >>> >>> Avoid two pointers for size, or readability? Because the last >>> version had a union with of_node, which isn't strictly necessary as I can >>> just cast the pptt token to of_node. There is exactly one line of code >>> after >>> that which uses the token and it doesn't care about type. >> >> >> So call this field "token" or similar. Don't call it "of_node" and >> don't introduce another "firmware_node" thing in addition to that. >> That just is a mess, sorry. > > > I sort of agree, I think I can just change the whole of_node to a generic > 'void *firmware_unique' which works fine for the PPTT code, it should also > work for the DT code in cache_leaves_are_shared(). > > The slight gocha is there is a bit of DT code which initially runs earlier > that uses of_node as an indirect parameter to a couple functions (by just > passing the cacheinfo). Let me see if I can tweak that a bit. > > Frankly, If I understood completely all the *priv cases I suspect it might > be possible to collapse *of_node into that as well. That is as long as no > one decides to flush out DT on x86, or PPTT on x86. I'm not aware of any plans to go in that direction. Anyway, that would be a worry of whoever wanted to do that. No need to worry about it upfront. -- 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
