On 6/22/2010 4:15 PM, Eric Miao wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Joonyoung Shim
> <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2010 12:38 PM, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Joonyoung Shim
>>> <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2010 12:02 PM, Eric Miao wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2010 8:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:39:10PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>>>>>>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 05:05:34PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> +void __init samsung_keypad_set_platdata(struct samsung_keypad_platdata *pd)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � struct samsung_keypad_platdata *npd;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � if (!pd) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � � � � � printk(KERN_ERR "%s: no platform data\n", __func__);
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � � � � � return;
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � }
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � npd = kmemdup(pd, sizeof(struct samsung_keypad_platdata), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � if (!npd)
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � � � � � printk(KERN_ERR "%s: no memory for platform data\n", __func__);
>>>>>>>>>> This part of the code is actually duplicated again and again and again
>>>>>>>>>> for each device, PXA and other legacy platforms are bad references for
>>>>>>>>>> this. In arch/arm/mach-mmp/, it might be a bit cleaner, there are three
>>>>>>>>>> major points:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �1. A minimum 'struct pxa_device_desc' for a simple description of a
>>>>>>>>>> � � device (more than 90% of the devices can be described that way),
>>>>>>>>>> � � and avoid using a comparatively heavier weight platform_device,
>>>>>>>>>> � � which can be generated at run-time
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> �2. pxa_register_device() to allocate and register the platform_device
>>>>>>>>>> � � at run-time, along with the platform data
>>>>>>>>> It's a bad idea to make platform data be run-time discardable like this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +struct samsung_keypad_platdata {
>>>>>>>>>>> + � � � const struct matrix_keymap_data *keymap_data;
>>>>>>>>> What you end up with is some platform data structures which must be kept
>>>>>>>>> (those which have pointers to them from the platform data), and others
>>>>>>>>> (the platform data itself) which can be discarded at runtime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We know that the __initdata attributations cause lots of problems -
>>>>>>>>> they're frequently wrong. �Just see the constant hastle with __devinit
>>>>>>>>> et.al. �The same issue happens with __initdata as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So why make things more complicated by allowing some platform data
>>>>>>>>> structures to be discardable and others not to be? �Is their small
>>>>>>>>> size (maybe 6 words for this one) really worth the hastle of getting
>>>>>>>>> __initdata attributations wrong (eg, on the keymap data?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Russell,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The benefit I see is when multiple boards are compiled in, those
>>>>>>>> data not used can be automatically discarded.
>>>>>>> Yes, but only some of the data can be discarded. Continuing with the
>>>>>>> example in hand, while you can discard the six words which represent
>>>>>>> samsung_keypad_platdata, but the keymap_data can't be because that won't
>>>>>>> be re-allocated, which is probably a much larger data structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. the keymap_data is possible too. The keypad driver allocates other
>>>>>> keymap area of input device and it is assigned from datas based on this
>>>>>> keymap_data.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is a generic issue. Even if in your example, you can avoid this by
>>>>> re-allocation and re-assignment (ignore the performance issue for such
>>>>> behavior), the real question is the difficult to track all these down. Since
>>>> Right, it can occur difficulty of maintain. I wanted just to inform the
>>>> current fact.
>>>>
>>>>> matrix_keypad_data is something out of your control (it was actually
>>>>> drafted by me and Dmitry if you are interested), and think about one day
>>>>> I changed it's definition, now you have to sync your driver and code every
>>>>> time to make sure the discarded data is not referenced.
>>>>>
>>>> if matrix_keypad_data is changed, i think the patchset should included
>>>> change of related other parts using it.
>>>>
>>> That's reasonable but difficult in practice, every keypad driver using
>>> matrix_keypad_data could be doing things differently. That's what I'm
>> Just FYI, correct name is matrix_keymap_data and current all keypad
>> drivers using matrix_keymap_data use it to same way.
>>
>
> Note I was just thinking there is a potential issue as been pointed out that
> we can improve. And I'm not NACKing your perfect patch. Sorry if I made
> you think so.
>
Don't mind me. I appreciate your interest.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
