(Sorry for the delay, just returning from vacation) On 12/12/17 23:37, Jeremy Linton wrote: > On 12/12/2017 05:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] >> >> 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 completely agree. Both me and Lorenzo pointed that out in previous revisions and fair enough you have a valid concern it's use with PPTT. > > 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(). > Should be fine. > 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. > May be use a simple inline wrapper functions to convert, might help if we diverge too. > 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. > priv is used to save architecture/cache specific details that can't be generalized. I doubt if this of_node or PPTT pointer/offset falls in that category. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
