Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Anup Patel" <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Michael Turquette" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	"Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Jassi Brar" <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <ukleinek@kernel.org>,
	"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>, "Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"Sunil V L" <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Rahul Pathak" <rpathak@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Leyfoon Tan" <leyfoon.tan@starfivetech.com>,
	"Atish Patra" <atish.patra@linux.dev>,
	"Andrew Jones" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Samuel Holland" <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
	"Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:39:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aGUaaOQaya-SaasR@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aGUaFX9WgTW1I_ZO@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 02:37:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:16 AM Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com> wrote:

...

> > >  static int acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > >                                           const char *propname, const char *nargs_prop,
> > >                                           unsigned int args_count, unsigned int index,
> 
> > >         const struct acpi_device_data *data;
> > >         struct fwnode_handle *ref_fwnode;
> > >         struct acpi_device *device;
> > > +       unsigned int nargs_count;
> > >         int ret, idx = 0;
> 
> > > +                       nargs_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> > 
> > I think it should work the same way as it used to for the callers that
> > pass args_count, so maybe
> > 
> > if (!args_count)
> >         args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> 
> But this is different variable.
> 
> > >                         element++;
> > > -
> > >                         ret = acpi_get_ref_args(idx == index ? args : NULL,
> > >                                                 acpi_fwnode_handle(device),
> > > -                                               &element, end, args_count);
> > > +                                               &element, end,
> > > +                                               nargs_count ? nargs_count : args_count);
> > 
> > And this change would not be necessary?
> 
> This is not the same check as proposed above.
> But this can be made shorter with Elvis in use:
> 
> 						&element, end, nargs_count ?: args_count);
> 
> > And analogously below.
> 
> And below. And in case if there is a new proposal to have
> 
> 	if (!nargs_count)

I meant

	if (!nargs_prop)

here of course.

> 		args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> 
> that is exactly what I asked to drop as it's included in the
> acpi_fwnode_get_args_count() already, i.e. no need to check this in
> the caller and in the callee.
> 
> > >                         if (ret < 0)
> > >                                 return ret;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko