lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 5/9] drivers: base: cacheinfo: arm64: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables
From
Date


On 20/11/17 18:02, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 10:56 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> (trimming)
>
>>> * case there's no explicit cache node or the cache node
>>> itself in the * device tree + * @firmware_node: Shared with
>>> of_node. When not using DT, this may contain + * pointers to
>>> other firmware based values. Particularly ACPI/PPTT + * unique
>>> values. * @disable_sysfs: indicates whether this node is visible
>>> to the user via * sysfs or not * @priv: pointer to any private
>>> data structure specific to particular @@ -64,8 +67,10 @@ struct
>>> cacheinfo { #define CACHE_ALLOCATE_POLICY_MASK \
>>> (CACHE_READ_ALLOCATE | CACHE_WRITE_ALLOCATE) #define CACHE_ID
>>> BIT(4) - - struct device_node *of_node; + union { +
>>> struct device_node *of_node; + void *firmware_node; +
>>> };
>>
>> I would prefer struct device_node *of_node; changed to struct
>> fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>>
>> You can then have struct pptt_fwnode { <.....> /*below fwnode
>> allocated using acpi_alloc_fwnode_static */ struct fwnode_handle
>> *fwnode; };
>>
>> This gives a good starting point to abstract DT and ACPI.
>>
>> If not now, we can later implement fwnode.ops=pptt_cache_ops and
>> then use get property for both DT and ACPI.
>
>
> I'm obviously confused why this keeps coming up. On the surface it
> sounds like a good idea. But then, given that I've actually
> implemented a portion of it, what becomes clear is that the PPTT
> isn't a good match.

Fair enough.

> Converting the OF routines to use the fwnode is fairly
> straightforward, but that doesn't help the ACPI situation other than
> to create a lot of misleading code (and the possibility of creating
> nonstandard DSDT entries). The fact that this hasn't been done for
> other tables MADT/SLIT/SRAT/etc makes me wonder why we should do it
> for the PPTT?
>

IRQ/IORT does use it. If we don't want to use it fine. But the union
doesn't make sense and breaks the flow many other subsystems follow.
Hence I raised. Sorry, I hadn't followed the last revision/discussion on
this, my bad. But I had this thought since the beginning, hence I
brought this up.

> Particularly, when one considers fwnode is more a DSDT<->DT
> abstraction and thus has a lot of API surface that simply doesn't
> make any sense given the PPTT binary tree structure. Given that most
> of the fwnode routines are translating string properties (for
> example fwnode_property_read_string()) it might be possible to build
> a translator of some form which takes DT style properties and
> attempts to map them to the ACPI PPTT tree. What this adds I can't
> fathom, beyond the fact that suddenly the fwnode interface is a
> partial/brittle implementation where a large subset of the
> fwnode_operations will tend to be degenerate cases. The result likely
> will be a poorly implemented translator which breaks or is
> meaningless over a large part of the fwnode API surface.

Sure, I just mentioned ops thing, but that's optional. I just didn't
like the union which has of_node and void ptr instead of fwhandle. I am
fine if many agree that it's bad idea to use fwhandle here.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 19:14    [W:0.056 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site