linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 15/23] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

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: <aCGxvuHwd7TzfDOS@sunil-laptop>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 14:00:54 +0530
From: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Rahul Pathak <rpathak@...tanamicro.com>,
	Leyfoon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev>,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/23] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

Hi Andy,

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 10:16:52AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 07:09:31PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > 
> > Currently, ACPI doesn't support cells property when
> > fwnode_property_get_reference_args() is called. ACPI always expects the
> > number of arguments to be passed. However,
> > fwnode_property_get_reference_args() being a common interface for OF and
> > ACPI, it is better to have single calling convention which works for
> > both. Hence, add support for cells property on the reference device to
> > get the number of arguments dynamically.
> 
> You can reformat above to make it deviate less (in terms of line lengths):
> 
> Currently, ACPI doesn't support cells property when
> fwnode_property_get_reference_args() is called. ACPI always expects
> the number of arguments to be passed. However, the above mentioned
> call being a common interface for OF and ACPI, it is better to have
> single calling convention which works for both. Hence, add support
> for cells property on the reference device to get the number of
> arguments dynamically.
>
Sure. Let me update in the next revision. Thanks!
 
> ...
> 
> > +			if (nargs_prop) {
> > +				if (!acpi_dev_get_property(device, nargs_prop,
> > +							   ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER, &obj)) {
> > +					args_count = obj->integer.value;
> > +				}
> > +			}
> > +
> 
> > +			if (nargs_prop) {
> > +				device = to_acpi_device_node(ref_fwnode);
> > +				if (!acpi_dev_get_property(device, nargs_prop,
> > +							   ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER, &obj)) {
> > +					args_count = obj->integer.value;
> > +				}
> > +			}
> 
> These two seems to me enough duplicative to have a common helper:
> 
> static unsigned int ...(struct acpi_dev *adev, ...)
> {
> 	// define an obj variable?
> 
> 	if (!nargs_prop)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	if (acpi_dev_get_property(adev, nargs_prop, ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER, &obj))
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	return obj->integer.value;
> }
> 
> Yes, the nember of LoCs most likely will increase, but the point here is better
> maintenance experience.
> 
Makes sense. Let me do it in the next version.

Thanks!
Sunil