linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] software node: allow referencing firmware nodes

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: <aQiyMdvUhPQxkpmw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 15:46:25 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] software node: allow referencing firmware nodes

On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 11:36:36AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 10:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 10:35:23AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > +#define SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE(_ref, ...)                  \
> > > +     __SOFTWARE_NODE_REF(_ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > +
> > > +#define SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_FWNODE(_ref, ...)                  \
> > > +     __SOFTWARE_NODE_REF(_ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > +
> > > +/* DEPRECATED, use SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE() instead. */
> > > +#define SOFTWARE_NODE_REFERENCE(_ref, ...)                   \
> > > +     SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE(_ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > Now, useless.
> 
> No, why? With these changes, SOFTWARE_NODE_REFERENCE()'s name is a bit
> misleading or incomplete, so I'm proposing to start replacing it with
> SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE() which is compatible with the former but has
> a better name.

It's an unneeded churn. I don't see a confusion here. One may interpret
That it is a reference in a software node to another node.

...

> > > -#define PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF(_name_, _ref_, ...)                               \
> > > +#define __PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF(_type, _name, _ref, ...)                        \
> > >  (struct property_entry) {                                            \
> > > -     .name = _name_,                                                 \
> > > +     .name = _name,                                                  \
> > >       .length = sizeof(struct software_node_ref_args),                \
> > >       .type = DEV_PROP_REF,                                           \
> > > -     { .pointer = &SOFTWARE_NODE_REFERENCE(_ref_, ##__VA_ARGS__), }, \
> > > +     { .pointer = &_type(_ref, ##__VA_ARGS__), },                    \
> > >  }
> >
> > Do we need this now? I assume that _Generic() takes case of this.


> Ah, right, it should be done here as well.

Just it should work as is without changes, did I miss anything?

...

> > > +#define PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF_SWNODE(_name, _ref, ...)                  \
> > > +     __PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF(SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE,                  \
> > > +                          _name, _ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > +
> > > +#define PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF_FWNODE(_name, _ref, ...)                  \
> > > +     __PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF(SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_FWNODE,                  \
> > > +                         _name, _ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > +
> > > +/* DEPRECATED, use PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF_SWNODE() instead. */
> > > +#define PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF(_name, _ref, ...)                         \
> > > +     PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF_SWNODE(_name, _ref, __VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > Seems like useless churn.
> 
> This is the same argument as with SOFTWARE_NODE_REF_SWNODE(). It's not
> clear from the name what PROPERTY_ENTRY_REF() is really referencing.

Same answer as above.

...

TL;DR: Let's leave renaming / splitting to another series. It doesn't sound
like a required thingy. Only what I see is unneeded churn.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko