Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] xen/dom0less: introduce free_phandle in struct kernel_info

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com>]

On 4/20/26 9:26 AM, Orzel, Michal wrote:
> On 16/04/2026 16:20, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>> There are cases where it is necessary to know the next available phandle
>> number in order to generate phandles for guest device nodes.
>>
>> When a partial FDT (pfdt) is provided, special care is needed during
>> initialization of free_phandle, as the pfdt may already contain a dummy
>> interrupt controller node with a phandle assigned to it.  free_phandle
>> must therefore be initialized to one past the highest phandle already
>> present in the pfdt, to avoid collisions.
>>
>> Since free_phandle may be needed for the very first guest node generated,
> I would prefer next_phandle rather than free_phandle given that it always holds
> the *next* phandle to be allocated. Free is implied.

I am okay with such naming as I had it before and decided to change at 
last minute.

> 
>> domain_handle_dtb_boot_module() is moved earlier in prepare_dtb_domU().
>> The new call site also aligns better with the existing comment stating
>> that domain_handle_dtb_boot_module() must be called before the rest of
>> the device tree is generated.
>>
>> Introduce get_next_free_phandle() to ensure that phandles allocated for
> The name is a bit confusing. It reads as "get the next one after the current
> free phandle" but it actually returns the current value of free_phandle and post
> increments it. Let's call it alloc_phandle(). This will also make it clear to
> use the return value of this function instead of directly kinfo value.

alloc_phandle() sounds good to me.

Thanks.

~ Oleksii