Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] block: partitions: populate fwnode

Daniel Golle
2024-06-26T19:58:26Z

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:43:49PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/25/24 8:50 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > diff --git a/block/partitions/core.c b/block/partitions/core.c
> > index ab76e64f0f6c..f88829e254e6 100644
> > --- a/block/partitions/core.c
> > +++ b/block/partitions/core.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
> > #include <linux/ctype.h>
> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> > #include <linux/raid/detect.h>
> > +#include <linux/property.h>
> > +
> > #include "check.h"
> >
> > static int (*const check_part[])(struct parsed_partitions *) = {
> > @@ -281,6 +283,42 @@ static ssize_t whole_disk_show(struct device *dev,
> > }
> > static const DEVICE_ATTR(whole_disk, 0444, whole_disk_show, NULL);
> >
> > +static struct fwnode_handle *find_partition_fwnode(struct block_device *bdev)
> > +{
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fw_parts, *fw_part;
> > + struct device *ddev = disk_to_dev(bdev->bd_disk);
> > + const char *partname, *uuid;
> > + u32 partno;
> > +
> > + fw_parts = device_get_named_child_node(ddev, "partitions");
> > + if (!fw_parts)
> > + fw_parts = device_get_named_child_node(ddev->parent, "partitions");
> > +
> > + if (!fw_parts)
> > + return NULL;
>
> That last if check should to inside the previous one.

Actually the previous one should have been removed entirely. I somehow
forgot to 'git add' that change.

>
> > + fwnode_for_each_child_node(fw_parts, fw_part) {
> > + if (!fwnode_property_read_string(fw_part, "uuid", &uuid) &&
> > + (!bdev->bd_meta_info || strlen(uuid) > PARTITION_META_INFO_UUIDLTH ||
> > + strncmp(uuid, bdev->bd_meta_info->uuid, PARTITION_META_INFO_UUIDLTH)))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (!fwnode_property_read_string(fw_part, "partname", &partname) &&
> > + (!bdev->bd_meta_info || strlen(uuid) > PARTITION_META_INFO_VOLNAMELTH ||
> > + strncmp(partname, bdev->bd_meta_info->volname,
> > + PARTITION_META_INFO_VOLNAMELTH)))
> > + continue;
>
> This is pretty hard to make sense of...

I'll add comments explaining it. Or should I use another syntax, e.g. several
nested if-clauses, instead?