Re: [PATCH 0/5] mfd: replace IORESOURCE_IO by IORESOURCE_MEM

Russell King
2012-08-07T15:50:33Z

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:45:55PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > #define IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS 0x00001f00 /* Resource type */
> > #define IORESOURCE_IO 0x00000100
> > #define IORESOURCE_MEM 0x00000200
> > +#define IORESOURCE_FOO 0x00000300
>
> These are bit masks and checked as such in many places. This makes no
> sense at all.

Correct, but nowhere are they checked as masks in the platform
device/driver code nor the MFD driver code. Here's the relevant
extracts from the platform driver code:

struct resource *platform_get_resource(struct platform_device *dev,
unsigned int type, unsigned int num)
{
int i;

for (i = 0; i < dev->num_resources; i++) {
struct resource *r = &dev->resource[i];

if (type == resource_type(r) && num-- == 0)
return r;
}
return NULL;
}

...
if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_MEM)
p = &iomem_resource;
else if (resource_type(r) == IORESOURCE_IO)
p = &ioport_resource;

This is modern code, written using the accessors provided in ioport.h.

resource_type() is defined as:

static inline unsigned long resource_type(const struct resource *res)
{
return res->flags & IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS;
}

So, provided these don't leak outside of the platform and the affected
MFD drivers, what the rest of the kernel does doesn't matter.

> Moving to IO_RESOURCE_TYPE() being 0-31 values might be smart but its a
> massive all kernel change.

Only if we want to change the existing numbering _or_ propagate them
outside of platform devices etc, and when that happens that's the time
to start fixing stuff one subsystem at a time.

Of course, if the above helper was being used, we'd already be set.

I don't see that as a blocker to its local use, contained completely
within the MFD and platform device subsystems.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/