Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 06:58, Wolfgang Wallner < wolfgang.wall...@br-automation.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > -----"Simon Glass" <s...@chromium.org> schrieb: ----- > > > > The current code uses an address but a pointer would result in fewer > > casts. Also it repeats the alignment code in a lot of places so this would > > be better done in a helper function. > > > > Update write_acpi_tables() to make use of the new acpi_ctx structure, > > adding a few helpers to clean things up. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > > > Changes in v2: None > > > > arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > include/acpi_table.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++ > > lib/acpi/acpi_table.c | 22 ++++++++++ > > test/dm/acpi.c | 28 +++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > >
[..] > > +/** > > + * acpi_align() - Align the ACPI output pointer to a 16-byte boundary > > + * > > + * @ctx: ACPI context > > + */ > > +void acpi_align(struct acpi_ctx *ctx); > > Nit: The function names acpi_align() and acpi_align_large() are both vague > on the exact alignment that is used. > How about acpi_align16() and acpi_align64() ? There is I think only one case where we use 64. Most of the time it is 16. So I thought it was a bit silly to put 16 in the function name - it is the standard alignment. Perhaps I should use align() and align64()? Regards, Simon
