linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gnWn_05XN7r+Mwwgc0ca5vx8wgAQ1A8aAwOPvc9H899Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:02:58 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, jhugo@...eaurora.org,
        wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com, Jonathan.Zhang@...ium.com,
        Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>, Jayachandran.Nair@...ium.com,
        austinwc@...eaurora.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI
 based firmware tables

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 12/12/2017 11:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>

[cut]

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Thanks,
Rafael