Re: [PATCH 6/6] pci, acpi: Share ACPI PCI config space accessors.

Tomasz Nowicki
2014-12-08T07:14:08Z

W dniu 24.11.2014 o 11:41, Arnd Bergmann pisze:
> On Friday 21 November 2014 11:08:25 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:24:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 20 November 2014 21:00:17 Myron Stowe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> That's interesting. I would have said exactly the opposite -- I think the
>>>>> extra Kconfiggery is harder to follow than weak/strong functions
>>>>>
>>>>> But consistency is better than my personal opinion. Is there a consensus
>>>>> that we should use the Kconfig strategy instead of __weak?
>>>>
>>>> I too find weak/strong functions easier to follow than "Kconfiggery" (nice term
>>>> invention there).
>>>
>>> I don't think there is a universal consensus, but the majority of
>>> maintainers seems to avoid them for the same reasons that I think
>>> __weak is problematic.
>>>
>>> We have some uses of __weak in the core kernel, but there is
>>> basically none in drivers outside of PCI, and the most common
>>> uses are all providing an empty __weak function that can be
>>> overridden with a function that actually does something, unlike
>>> the code above.
>>
>> One thing I like better about __weak (when used correctly) is that you have
>> exactly one declaration, and the role of each definition (weak default
>> implementation or strong override) is obvious from looking at it.
>
> Right.
>
>> In your #ifdef example, the extern declaration and the inline definition
>> are never compiled together, so you have to repeat the signature and the
>> compiler doesn't enforce that they match. So you end up with the extern
>> and the inline in one file, a #define in an arch header file or Kconfig,
>> and an arch definition in a third file.
>>
>> But it's certainly true that everybody knows how #ifdef works, and the fact
>> that __weak on a declaration affects all in-scope definitions is definitely
>> a land mine (multiple weak definitions with no strong one is a disaster).
>>
>>> My pragmatic approach so far has been to advocate __weak for
>>> drivers/pci patches but discourage it elsewhere when I review
>>> patches, in order to maintain consistency. I also think it
>>> would be nice to change the way that PCI handles architecture
>>> specific overrides in the process of unifying the host bridge
>>> handling.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't use Kconfig symbols in most cases though. My preferred
>>> choice would be to turn a lot of the __weak symbols into function
>>> pointers within a per-hostbridge structure. As an example, we could
>>> replace pcibios_add_device() with a pointer in pci_host_bridge->ops
>>> that gets set by all the architectures and host drivers that currently
>>> override it, and replace the one caller with
>>>
>>> if (pci_host_bridge->ops->add_device)
>>> pci_host_bridge->ops->add_device(dev);
>>
>> I definitely agree with this part, but I think it's orthogonal to the
>> __weak question. In this case, we'd like to support multiple host bridges,
>> each with a different flavor of add_device(). We can't do that at all with
>> either __weak or #ifdef.
>
> What we currently have though is a a __weak definition of add_device,
> which some architectures override, and some of them (ARM in particular)
> by implementing their own abstraction. I suspect for the majority of
> what we currently define as __weak functions, we could use a similar
> approach and kill off the global symbols entirely.

What would be next steps regarding this patch set? I am not sure we have
reached a consensus on weak vs #ifdef choice.

Regards,
Tomasz