Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, jhugo@codeaurora.org,
        wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com, Jonathan.Zhang@cavium.com,
        Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>, Jayachandran.Nair@cavium.com,
        austinwc@codeaurora.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI
 based firmware tables
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
References: <20171201222330.18863-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20171201222330.18863-5-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <2078459.JrYtfXc8fv@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <5024a041-2ef4-3912-994f-b5fcc945e916@arm.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hHdfE3khVvuqQm5JFMgY5R054c8UB9Nixii9ucq0Ecnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9bb1c58a-8d48-9952-e292-60b2bcb87a51@arm.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gnWn_05XN7r+Mwwgc0ca5vx8wgAQ1A8aAwOPvc9H899Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <fdb60100-3973-b9e3-487a-882836f8751e@arm.com>
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Organization: ARM
Message-ID: <3c3bf8a4-a13a-ce71-4bd2-71dd11b45521@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:21:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fdb60100-3973-b9e3-487a-882836f8751e@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

(Sorry for the delay, just returning from vacation)

On 12/12/17 23:37, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 05:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

[...]

>>
>> So call this field "token" or similar.  Don't call it "of_node" and
>> don't introduce another "firmware_node" thing in addition to that.
>> That just is a mess, sorry.

I completely agree. Both me and Lorenzo pointed that out in previous
revisions and fair enough you have a valid concern it's use with PPTT.

> 
> I sort of agree, I think I can just change the whole of_node to a
> generic 'void *firmware_unique' which works fine for the PPTT code, it
> should also work for the DT code in cache_leaves_are_shared().
>

Should be fine.

> The slight gocha is there is a bit of DT code which initially runs
> earlier that uses of_node as an indirect parameter to a couple functions
> (by just passing the cacheinfo). Let me see if I can tweak that a bit.
>

May be use a simple inline wrapper functions to convert, might help if
we diverge too.

> Frankly, If I understood completely all the *priv cases I suspect it
> might be possible to collapse *of_node into that as well. That is as
> long as no one decides to flush out DT on x86, or PPTT on x86.
> 

priv is used to save architecture/cache specific details that can't be
generalized. I doubt if this of_node or PPTT pointer/offset falls in
that category.


-- 
Regards,
Sudeep