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: <5db6079b-2d8e-9126-5f49-fc891765e360@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 13:44:11 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 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 12/2/21 11:10 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 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.

Works for me.
-- 
Florian