On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 06:24:25PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:17:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > Based on the design pattern utilized in the CM GCR and L2-sync base > > address getters implementation the platform-specific code is capable to > > re-define the getters and re-use the weakly defined initial versions. But > > since the re-definition is supposed to be done in another source file the > > interface methods have been globally defined which in its turn causes the > > "no previous prototype" warning printed should the re-definition is > > finally introduced. Since without the global declarations the pattern can > > be considered as incomplete and causing the warning printed, fix it by > > providing the respective methods prototype declarations in > > "arch/mips/include/asm/mips-cm.h". > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Note as I mentioned in the previous patch, since the weak implementation > > of the getters isn't utilized other than as a default implementation of > > the original methods, we can convert the denoted pattern to a simple > > __weak attributed methods. Let me know if that would be more preferable. > > how about simply remove __mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() and do everything > via mips_cm_phys_base(). And at the moment without anyone overriding > mips_cm_phys_base I tend to keep static without __weak. If someone > needs, we can change it. Does this make sense ? To be honest my arch code (not submitted yet) do override the mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() method. The memory just behind the CM2 region is hardwired for the EEPROM mapping. So the default __mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() implementation selecting the L2-sync with (mips_cm_phys_base() + MIPS_CM_GCR_SIZE) isn't suitable for my platform. Note what you suggest will require the CM and CM L2-sync probe code logic redevelopment. The mips_cm_phys_base() method is currently dedicated for a single purpose: return the CM GCR physical base address. So is the mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() method. Merging the later method into the former one will cause the mips_cm_phys_base() function looking less neat. We will also require to have the mips_cm_probe() method keeping the CM L2-sync physical base addresses around and then passing it to mips_cm_probe_l2sync() or having the later method embedded into mips_cm_probe(). All of that won't look as good as the current implementation. What about instead of that I'll just convert both mips_cm_phys_base() and mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() to being defined with the underscored methods body and assign the __weak attribute to them? -Serge(y) > > Thomas. > > -- > Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a > good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
