[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z73RssDaLZ1NLpSZ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:20:34 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] of: Align macro MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS with
NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:58:07PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
>
> Macro NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS defines the maximal argument count
> for firmware node reference, and MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS defines the maximal
> argument count for DT node reference, both have the same value now.
>
> To void argument count inconsistency between firmware and DT, simply
> align both macros by '#define MAX_PHANDLE_ARGS NR_FWNODE_REFERENCE_ARGS'.
I would add here that the of.h includes fwnode.h already, so it doesn't
add any new compile time dependency.
Both patches LGTM,
Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists