From: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/12] Update firmware_has_feature() to check architecture bits
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:56:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5176D950.9010507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130423115002.3d321e6a69ed97d134127a2b@canb.auug.org.au>
On 04/22/2013 08:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:38:47 -0500 Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> -/* Option vector 5: PAPR/OF options supported */
>> -#define OV5_LPAR 0x80 /* logical partitioning supported */
>> -#define OV5_SPLPAR 0x40 /* shared-processor LPAR supported */
>> +/* Option vector 5: PAPR/OF options supported
>> + * Thses bits are also used for the platform_has_feature() call so
> ^^^^^
> typo
will fix.
>
>> + * we encode the vector index in the define and use the OV5_FEAT()
>> + * and OV5_INDX() macros to extract the desired information.
>> + */
>> +#define OV5_FEAT(x) ((x) & 0xff)
>> +#define OV5_INDX(x) ((x) >> 8)
>> +#define OV5_LPAR 0x0280 /* logical partitioning supported */
>> +#define OV5_SPLPAR 0x0240 /* shared-processor LPAR supported */
>
> Wouldn't it be clearer to say
>
> #define OV5_LPAR (OV5_INDX(0x2) | OV5_FEAT(0x80))
The defines won't work the way you used them, they were designed to take the
combined value, i.e. 0x0280, and parse out the index and the feature.
I do think having macros to create the actual values as your example does is easier
to read. We could do something like...
#define OV5_FEAT(x) ((x) & 0xff)
#define OV5_SETINDX(x) ((x) << 8)
#define OV5_GETINDX(x) ((x) >> 8)
#define OV5_LPAR (OV5_SETINDX(0x2) | OV5_FEAT(0x80))
Thoughts?
>
> etc?
>
>> @@ -145,6 +141,7 @@
>> * followed by # option vectors - 1, followed by the option vectors.
>> */
>> extern unsigned char ibm_architecture_vec[];
>> +bool platform_has_feature(unsigned int);
>
> "extern", please (if nothing else, for consistency).
>
That shouldn't really be there, its an artifact from a previous patch. I'll remove it.
>> +static __initdata struct vec5_fw_feature
>> +vec5_fw_features_table[FIRMWARE_MAX_FEATURES] = {
>
> Why make this array FIRMWARE_MAX_FEATURES (63) long? You could just
> restrict the for loop below to ARRAY_SIZE(vec5_fw_features_table).
>
>> + {FW_FEATURE_TYPE1_AFFINITY, OV5_TYPE1_AFFINITY},
>> +};
>> +
>> +void __init fw_vec5_feature_init(const char *vec5, unsigned long len)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int index, feat;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + pr_debug(" -> fw_vec5_feature_init()\n");
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < FIRMWARE_MAX_FEATURES; i++) {
>> + if (!vec5_fw_features_table[i].feature)
>> + continue;
>
> And this test could go away.
>
> I realise that you have just copied the existing code, but you should not
> do that blindly. Maybe you could even add an (earlier) patch that fixes
> the existing code.
I think that could be done easily enough.
Thanks for looking,
-Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-23 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-22 17:54 [PATCH v3 0/12] NUMA CPU Reconfiguration using PRRN Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/12] Create a powerpc update_devicetree interface Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 0:15 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-04-23 18:46 ` Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 20:54 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-04-22 18:31 ` [PATCH v3 2/12] Correct buffer parsing in update-properties Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/12] Add PRRN event handler Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:35 ` [PATCH v3 4/12] Move architecture vector definitions to prom.h Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 0:18 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-04-22 18:38 ` [PATCH v3 5/12] Update firmware_has_feature() to check architecture bits Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 1:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-23 18:56 ` Nathan Fontenot [this message]
2013-04-23 1:52 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-22 18:40 ` [PATCH v3 6/12] Update numa.c to use updated firmware_has_feature() Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:41 ` [PATCH v3 7/12] Use stop machine to update cpu maps Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 0:24 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-04-23 18:58 ` Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:44 ` [PATCH v3 8/12] " Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 9/12] Update NUMA VDSO information Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:46 ` [PATCH v3 10/12] Re-enable Virtual Private Home Node capabilities Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:47 ` [PATCH v3 11/12] Enable PRRN Event handling Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-22 18:47 ` [PATCH v3 12/12] Add /proc interface to control topology updates Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 2:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-04-23 2:49 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-04-23 18:59 ` Nathan Fontenot
2013-04-23 2:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5176D950.9010507@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).