linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH PoC 2/3] ACPI: platform: Refactor acpi_create_platform

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: <CAJZ5v0gR0mZBGiCLR6mxdbaNGebti54M-VvV=jT0310KioPD7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:42:50 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PoC 2/3] ACPI: platform: Refactor acpi_create_platform_device()

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/08/2022 20:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:33 PM John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is commonality between acpi_create_platform_device() and
> >> hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child(), in that it covers 2x main steps:
> >> - Read resources for the acpi_device
> >> - Create platform device
> >>
> >> Refactor acpi_create_platform_device() so that it may be reused by
> >> hisi_lpc_acpi_add_child() to reduce duplication.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> + * acpi_create_platform_device_ops - Create platform device for ACPI device node
> >
> > Not sure I understand why _ops is a suffix for the function. I would
> > expect _ops to be a data struct where the ->xlate() and perhaps other
> > callbacks may be collected. It may be that I have missed that portion
> > in the previous discussion.
>
> ok, maybe I can put all the members into a struct, but I don't think
> that it improves the overall code too much.
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +       if (name)
> >> +               pdevinfo.name = name;
> >> +       else
> >> +               pdevinfo.name = dev_name(&adev->dev);
> >
> >> +       pdevinfo.data = data;
> >> +       pdevinfo.size_data = size_data;
> >
> > It rather reminds me of platform device registration full with this
> > device info. May be what you need is
> > struct acpi_platfrom_device_info {
> >    properties;
> >    name;
> >    id;
> >    ->xlate();
> >    ...
> > };
> >
> > ?
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +struct platform_device *acpi_create_platform_device_ops(
> >> +                               struct acpi_device *adev,
> >> +                               const char *name,
> >> +                               const struct property_entry *properties,
> >> +                               void *data, size_t size_data,
> >> +                               int (*xlat)(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >> +                                           struct resource *res,
> >> +                                           void *data, size_t size_data),
> >> +                               int id);
> >
> > ...because this looks  a bit too much from the amount of parameters
> > point of view.
> >
>
> ok, agreed.
>
> But even if we improve this code, the hisi_lpc changes are quite large
> and unwieldly.

Well, they allow you to drop quite a few LOC ...