netdev - Re: [RFC 03/10] base: swnode: use fwnode_get_match

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: <20220222093921.24878bae@fixe.home>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:39:21 +0100
From:   Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/10] base: swnode: use fwnode_get_match_data()

Le Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:48:00 +0200,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :

> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 05:26:45PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> > In order to allow matching devices with software node with
> > device_get_match_data(), use fwnode_get_match_data() for
> > .device_get_match_data operation.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	.device_get_match_data = fwnode_get_match_data,  
> 
> Huh? It should be other way around, no?
> I mean that each of the resource providers may (or may not) provide a
> method for the specific fwnode abstraction.
> 

Indeed, it should be the other way. But since this function is generic
and uses only fwnode API I guessed it would be more convenient to
define it in the fwnode generic part and use it for specific
implementation. I could have modified device_get_match_data to call it
if there was no .device_get_match_data operation like this:

const void *device_get_match_data(struct device *dev)
{
	if (!fwnode_has_op(fwnode, device_get_match_data)
		return fwnode_get_match_data(dev);
	return fwnode_call_ptr_op(dev_fwnode(dev),device_get_match_data, dev);
}

But I thought it was more convenient to do it by setting the
.device_get_match_data field of software_node operations.

-- 
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com