From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Introduce devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources To: Bjorn Helgaas , Jan Kiszka Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20180427222427.GB73638@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <869a8ad9-dd2f-8462-c0c4-2d8a62d74185@siemens.com> <20180430184007.GC95643@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <5e218659-b512-b622-25e0-5bb5a8f4b87d@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:43:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180430184007.GC95643@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 4/30/2018 2:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 09:28:47AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2018-04-28 00:24, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:13:39PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> From: Jan Kiszka >>>> >>>> of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources allocates the resource structures it >>>> fills dynamically, but none of its callers care to release them so far. >>>> Rather than requiring everyone to do this explicitly, introduce a >>>> managed version of that service. This differs API-wise only in taking a >>>> reference to the associated device, rather than to the device tree node. >>>> >>>> As of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources is an exported interface, we cannot >>>> simply drop it at this point. After converting all in-tree users to the >>>> new API, we could phase out the unmanaged one over some grace period. >>> >>> It looks like it might be possible to split this into three or four >>> patches: >>> >>> 1) Factor __of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() out of >>> of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() >>> >>> 2) Add struct device * argument >>> >>> 3) Convert pr_info() to dev_info() >>> >>> 4) Add devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() >> >> Will do. I'm even considering >> >> 5) mark of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() __deprecated, due to the leak >> and no remaining in-tree user - what do you think? > > Sounds good. > > It'd be nice if we had some guideline about deprecation -- whether we > actually need to mark things __deprecated, and then how long to wait > before actually removing them, but I don't see anything in > Documentation/. I'm under the impression that we don't quite care about out-of-tree drivers. I have seen many times out-of-tree drivers to be broken due to API changes, renames or even parameter meaning change. If the plan is to remove the API, just remove the API today. > > Looks like it was added by cbe4097f8ae6 ("of/pci: Add support for > parsing PCI host bridge resources from DT") in v3.18, so it's been > around for a while and I guess it would be nice to have a grace period > before removing it. > -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.