[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6oclML_DC1Vnf6z@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:34:44 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] of: property: Increase NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:00:32PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
>
> Currently, the following two macros have different values:
>
> // The maximal argument count for firmware node reference
> #define NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS 8
> // The maximal argument count for DT node reference
> #define MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS 16
>
> It may cause firmware node reference's argument count out of range if
> directly assign DT node reference's argument count to firmware's.
>
> drivers/of/property.c:of_fwnode_get_reference_args() is doing the direct
> assignment, so may cause firmware's argument count @args->nargs got out
> of range, namely, in [9, 16].
>
> Fix by increasing NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS to 16 to meet DT requirement.
...
> -#define NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS 8
> +#define NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS 16
Thinking of the case, perhaps you also want
static_assert(NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS == MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS);
to be put somewhere, but I don't think we can do it in this header file.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists