linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] irqchip: Pass platform_device pointer to init

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <fa6ae407c1da16e571aaf04eb424fecd@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:10:04 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Maulik Shah <quic_mkshah@...cinc.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] irqchip: Pass platform_device pointer to init_cb

On 2021-12-02 17:52, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/2/21 4:21 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> It makes sense to just pass device_node for callback in 
>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE
>> case, but not so much for IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER one, because
>> platform_driver probe/init usually needs device pointer for various
>> purposes, e.g. resource allocation, service request, device prefixed
>> message output, etc.  Create a new callback type irqchip_init_cb_t 
>> which
>> takes platform_device pointer as parameter, and update the existing
>> IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER users accordingly.
>> 
>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> Cc: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>> Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
> 
> Could you copy all recipients on all 3 patches plus your cover letter
> next time so we have the full context? Thanks!
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 
>> -static int __init bcm7120_l2_intc_probe_7120(struct device_node *dn,
>> +static int __init bcm7120_l2_intc_probe_7120(struct platform_device 
>> *pdev,
>>  					     struct device_node *parent)
>>  {
>> -	return bcm7120_l2_intc_probe(dn, parent, bcm7120_l2_intc_iomap_7120,
>> +	return bcm7120_l2_intc_probe(pdev->dev.of_node, parent,
>> +				     bcm7120_l2_intc_iomap_7120,
>>  				     "BCM7120 L2");
> 
> If you look further into that driver, you will see that we do something
> like this in bcm7120_l2_intc_probe:
> 
>           pdev = of_find_device_by_node(dn);
>           if (!pdev) {
>                   ret = -ENODEV;
>                   goto out_free_data;
>           }
> 
> which would be completely superfluous now that we pass a 
> platform_device
> directly. Can you rework your patch so as to eliminate that
> of_find_device_by_ndoe() (and the companion put_device call)?

Or just adopt the same construct in the MPM driver. At this stage, 
drivers
requiring a platform_device are the minority.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...