Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1

[matthew . gerlach]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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