Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:09:45 -0800 (PST) | From | matthew.gerlach@linux ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1 |
| |
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 08:54:48AM -0800, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 08:18:03AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >>>>> On 12/28/22 10:16 AM, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote: > > ... > >>>>>> + u64 params[]; >>>>> u64 *params >> >>>> This will break the overflow.h macros, no? >>>> Besides that it will break the code for sure as it's not an equivalent. >> >>> I don't understand how this will break the overflow.h macros. The definition >>> of struct dfl_feature_info and all of its uses are in a single file, dfl.c. >> >> Hint: __must_be_array() >> >> As I said, the proposed change is not acceptable since it's not an equivalent. > > Ah, you meant that there is no use of macros from overflow in the dfl.c? > IIRC we discussed that some of the code may make use of them, or am I > mistaken?
There currently is one usage of struct_size() from overflow.h in dfl.c, and my patch adds another usage of struct_size(). struct dfl_feature_info ends with a trailing array of u64.
I think the confusion is with struct dfl_feature and/or struct struct dfl_device. Those structs don't end with a trailing array, and those structs are not used with macros from overview.h.
Thanks for the feedback, Matthew Gerlach
> > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > >
| |