[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z_-cgFJWZTjMl_ud@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:03:12 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Use resource_set_{range,size}() helpers
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 02:53:51PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > + resource_set_range(res, 0xC0000, SZ_128K);
> > > res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW |
> > > IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED;
> >
> > I'm wondering why not DEFINE_RES_MEM() in such cases?
>
> I guess you meant DEFINE_RES() as that seems to allow giving custom flags.
> However, DEFINE_RES*() will overwrite ->name which seems something that
> ought to not be done here.
Okay, I haven't checked the initial state of name field here, so then
DEFINE_RES_MEM_NAMED()? Or don't we have one?
In any case I would rather see a one assignment for these cases than something
hidden behind proposed conversions.
> I found one other case from the same file though which is truly defines
> a resource from scratch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists