[PATCH v2 3/9] irqchip/gic: Convert to msi_create_parent_irq_domain() helper
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Fri May 16 03:47:05 PDT 2025
On Fri, 16 May 2025 11:36:07 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 13 2025 at 18:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > if (!v2m)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - inner_domain = irq_domain_create_hierarchy(parent, 0, 0, v2m->fwnode,
> > - &gicv2m_domain_ops, v2m);
> > + inner_domain = msi_create_parent_irq_domain(&(struct irq_domain_info){
> > + .fwnode = v2m->fwnode,
> > + .ops = &gicv2m_domain_ops,
> > + .host_data = v2m,
> > + .parent = parent,
> > + }, &gicv2m_msi_parent_ops);
> > +
>
> This really makes my eyes bleed.
>
> if (!v2m)
> return 0;
>
> - inner_domain = irq_domain_create_hierarchy(parent, 0, 0, v2m->fwnode,
> - &gicv2m_domain_ops, v2m);
> + struct irq_domain_info info = {
> + .fwnode = v2m->fwnode,
> + .ops = &gicv2m_domain_ops,
> + .host_data = v2m,
> + .parent = parent,
> + };
> +
> + inner_domain = msi_create_parent_irq_domain(&info, &gicv2m_msi_parent_ops);
>
> That's too readable, right?
>
> No need to resend, I just hacked up a few lines of coccinelle script to
> eliminate this offense.
I personally find the rework much uglier than the original contraption.
Variables declared in the middle of the code, Rust-style? Meh.
But hey, your call.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list