Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/intel/tpmi/plr: allocate die_info with plr

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026, Rosen Penev wrote:

> Simplifies allocations slightly.
> 
> Add __counted_by for extra runtime analysis.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c | 9 ++-------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> index 05727169f49c..2fd27e80bc1f 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/plr_tpmi.c
> @@ -57,9 +57,9 @@ struct tpmi_plr_die {
>  
>  struct tpmi_plr {
>  	struct dentry *dbgfs_dir;
> -	struct tpmi_plr_die *die_info;
>  	int num_dies;
>  	struct auxiliary_device *auxdev;
> +	struct tpmi_plr_die die_info[] __counted_by(num_dies);
>  };
>  
>  static const char * const plr_coarse_reasons[] = {
> @@ -278,15 +278,10 @@ static int intel_plr_probe(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev, const struct auxilia
>  	if (!num_resources)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	plr = devm_kzalloc(&auxdev->dev, sizeof(*plr), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	plr = devm_kzalloc(&auxdev->dev, struct_size(plr, die_info, num_resources), GFP_KERNEL);

Is there some particular reason why we don't have devm_kzalloc_flex() 
other than that nobody has yet bothered to added one.

One of the most annoying thing with the various alloc APIs is that devm_* 
variants seem to never keep up with them. It would be nice if there would 
be some generic solution that when somebody decides a new alloc api func, 
the corresponding devm counterpart would be auto-generated for it.

-- 
 i.