[PATCH v7 3/4] gicv2m: Refactor to prepare for ACPI support
helgaas at kernel.org
Thu Dec 17 08:57:14 PST 2015
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:23:49PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> Thanks for your review. Please see my comments below.
> On 12/16/2015 4:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:55:29AM -0800, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>This patch replaces the struct device_node with struct fwnode_handle
> >>since this structure is common between DT and ACPI.
> >>It also refactors gicv2m_init_one() to prepare for ACPI support.
> >>The only functional change is removing the node name from pr_info.
> >>Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit at amd.com>
> >>@@ -359,10 +355,10 @@ static int __init gicv2m_init_one(struct device_node *node,
> >> }
> >> list_add_tail(&v2m->entry, &v2m_nodes);
> >>- pr_info("Node %s: range[%#lx:%#lx], SPI[%d:%d]\n", node->name,
> >>- (unsigned long)v2m->res.start, (unsigned long)v2m->res.end,
> >>- v2m->spi_start, (v2m->spi_start + v2m->nr_spis));
> >>+ pr_info("range[%#lx:%#lx], SPI[%d:%d]\n",
> >>+ (unsigned long)res->start, (unsigned long)res->end,
> >>+ v2m->spi_start, (v2m->spi_start + v2m->nr_spis));
> >You didn't change this, but I don't think this message has enough
> >context. It's pretty cryptic all by itself. It'd be nice if it could
> >at least include a device name, e.g., if you could use dev_info().
> Here is the example of the information printed:
> [ 0.000000] GICv2m: range[0xe1180000:0xe1181000], SPI[64:320]
> Basically, the v2m is just an extension of the GIC. Here, we are
> printing the memory range that it is covering, which can be used to
> identify different V2m frame and the associate interrupt range
> (SPI). The node name is not really providing any values. So, we are
> removing it.
I noticed the pr_fmt definition later; that adds some useful context I
didn't know about. I guess there's no struct device for the GIC? I
don't see one in struct device_node. Seems like this piece of
hardware that apparently responds to a memory range *could* have a
struct device, but I'm a little fuzzy on how we handle ACPI and OF
device descriptions in that regard.
I hadn't noticed the memory range part; maybe you could use %pR there?
Just to double-check, there's no off-by-one error in the SPI range, is
there? The pattern I usually expect is "start, start + nr_items - 1".
I'm just kibbitzing here; this isn't PCI code, and you don't need my
ack, so just consider these as random observations.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel