On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 11:33 +1000, Oliver O'Halloran wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: > > On 23/06/2020 04:59, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > Also, despite this particular file, the "pdn" name is usually used for > > > > struct pci_dn (not device_node), let's keep it that way. > > > > > > Sure, I got confused for some time about this, as we have: > > > static u64 enable_ddw(struct pci_dev *dev, struct device_node *pdn). > > > but on *_ddw() we have "struct pci_dn *pdn". > > > > True again, not the cleanest style here. > > > > > > > I will also add a patch that renames those 'struct device_node *pdn' to > > > something like 'struct device_node *parent_dn'. > > I usually go with "np" or "node". In this case I'd use "parent_np" or > just "parent." As you said pci_dn conventionally uses pdn so that > should be avoided if at all possible. There's some places that just > use "dn" for device_node, but I don't think that's something we should > encourage due to how similar it is to pdn.
Sure, I will try that. > > > I would not go that far, we (well, Oliver) are getting rid of many > > occurrences of pci_dn and Oliver may have a stronger opinion here. > > I'm trying to remove the use of pci_dn from non-RTAS platforms which > doesn't apply to pseries. For RTAS platforms having pci_dn sort of > makes sense since it's used to cache data from the device_node and > having it saves you from needing to parse and validate the DT at > runtime since we're supposed to be relying on the FW provided settings > in the DT. I want to get rid of it on PowerNV because it's become a > dumping ground for random bits and pieces of platform specific data. > It's confusing at best and IMO it duplicates a lot of what's already > available in the per-PHB structures which the platform specific stuff > should actually be looking at. > > Oliver Best regards, Leonardo Bras
