Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] gicv2m: Refactor to prepare for ACPI support

[Suravee Suthikulanit]

On 12/17/2015 10:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > @@ -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.

For DT, v2m is advertised as a sub-node inside GIC. So, both of them has 
the struct device_node references. IIUC, GIC node is match as irqchip, 
and not as a traditional platform bus device.

Similarly, for ACPI, v2m is advertised as a sub-table inside MADT, and 
we are using the fwnode_handle to reference to.

> I hadn't noticed the memory range part; maybe you could use %pR there?

I guess we could have :) I can send a separate patch to clean this up.

> 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".

In that case, this should have been [64:319]. I'll send a small patch to 
clean this up.

> I'm just kibbitzing here; this isn't PCI code, and you don't need my
> ack, so just consider these as random observations.
>
> Bjorn

Thanks for sharing your observation. It's always been good ones :)

Suravee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/