| Message ID | 20191108042225.45391-2-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | software node: add support for reference properties | expand |
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 5:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > directly inside property_entry or separately. So the subject is slightly misleading, because it is not a rename. I would say "replace x with y" instead. [Arguably I can change that when applying the patch, but since we are going to wait for the dependencies to go in, it should not be a big deal to send an update of this patch alone?] > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/base/swnode.c | 12 +++++------- > include/linux/property.h | 13 ++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c > index d8d0dc0ca5acf..18a30fb3cc588 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c > +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c > @@ -108,10 +108,7 @@ static const void *property_get_pointer(const struct property_entry *prop) > if (!prop->length) > return NULL; > > - if (prop->is_array) > - return prop->pointer; > - > - return &prop->value; > + return prop->is_inline ? &prop->value : prop->pointer; > } > > static const void *property_entry_find(const struct property_entry *props, > @@ -205,7 +202,7 @@ static void property_entry_free_data(const struct property_entry *p) > const char * const *src_str; > size_t i, nval; > > - if (p->is_array) { > + if (!p->is_inline) { > if (p->type == DEV_PROP_STRING && p->pointer) { > src_str = p->pointer; > nval = p->length / sizeof(const char *); > @@ -250,7 +247,7 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, > const void *pointer = property_get_pointer(src); > const void *new; > > - if (src->is_array) { > + if (!src->is_inline) { > if (!src->length) > return -ENODATA; > > @@ -264,15 +261,16 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, > return -ENOMEM; > } > > - dst->is_array = true; > dst->pointer = new; > } else if (src->type == DEV_PROP_STRING) { > new = kstrdup(src->value.str, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!new && src->value.str) > return -ENOMEM; > > + dst->is_inline = true; > dst->value.str = new; > } else { > + dst->is_inline = true; > dst->value = src->value; > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h > index 48335288c2a96..dad0ad11b55e2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/property.h > +++ b/include/linux/property.h > @@ -227,15 +227,17 @@ static inline int fwnode_property_count_u64(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > * struct property_entry - "Built-in" device property representation. > * @name: Name of the property. > * @length: Length of data making up the value. > - * @is_array: True when the property is an array. > + * @is_inline: True when the property value is embedded in > + * &struct property_entry instance. > * @type: Type of the data in unions. > - * @pointer: Pointer to the property (an array of items of the given type). > - * @value: Value of the property (when it is a single item of the given type). > + * @pointer: Pointer to the property when it is stored separately from > + * the &struct property_entry instance. > + * @value: Value of the property when it is stored inline. And while at it, can you please try to make the comments shorter so they each take one line?
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> writes: > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > directly inside property_entry or separately. Doesn't a non-null prop->pointer tell you this? And inverting the flag is unnecessarily risky IMHO. An all-zero prop might now result in dereferencing a NULL prop->pointer instead of using the empty prop->value. Now I haven't looked at the code to see if this is a real problem. But I believe it's better not having to do that anyway... Bjørn
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 07:52:43AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> writes: > > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > > directly inside property_entry or separately. > > Doesn't a non-null prop->pointer tell you this? No it does not because pointer is a part of a union. > > And inverting the flag is unnecessarily risky IMHO. An all-zero prop > might now result in dereferencing a NULL prop->pointer instead of using > the empty prop->value. Now I haven't looked at the code to see if this > is a real problem. But I believe it's better not having to do that > anyway... All-zero property is a terminator and thus we will not dereference anything. Thanks.
Dear All, On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > directly inside property_entry or separately. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). The code which fails after this patch is located in drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. > --- > drivers/base/swnode.c | 12 +++++------- > include/linux/property.h | 13 ++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c > index d8d0dc0ca5acf..18a30fb3cc588 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c > +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c > @@ -108,10 +108,7 @@ static const void *property_get_pointer(const struct property_entry *prop) > if (!prop->length) > return NULL; > > - if (prop->is_array) > - return prop->pointer; > - > - return &prop->value; > + return prop->is_inline ? &prop->value : prop->pointer; > } > > static const void *property_entry_find(const struct property_entry *props, > @@ -205,7 +202,7 @@ static void property_entry_free_data(const struct property_entry *p) > const char * const *src_str; > size_t i, nval; > > - if (p->is_array) { > + if (!p->is_inline) { > if (p->type == DEV_PROP_STRING && p->pointer) { > src_str = p->pointer; > nval = p->length / sizeof(const char *); > @@ -250,7 +247,7 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, > const void *pointer = property_get_pointer(src); > const void *new; > > - if (src->is_array) { > + if (!src->is_inline) { > if (!src->length) > return -ENODATA; > > @@ -264,15 +261,16 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, > return -ENOMEM; > } > > - dst->is_array = true; > dst->pointer = new; > } else if (src->type == DEV_PROP_STRING) { > new = kstrdup(src->value.str, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!new && src->value.str) > return -ENOMEM; > > + dst->is_inline = true; > dst->value.str = new; > } else { > + dst->is_inline = true; > dst->value = src->value; > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h > index 48335288c2a96..dad0ad11b55e2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/property.h > +++ b/include/linux/property.h > @@ -227,15 +227,17 @@ static inline int fwnode_property_count_u64(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > * struct property_entry - "Built-in" device property representation. > * @name: Name of the property. > * @length: Length of data making up the value. > - * @is_array: True when the property is an array. > + * @is_inline: True when the property value is embedded in > + * &struct property_entry instance. > * @type: Type of the data in unions. > - * @pointer: Pointer to the property (an array of items of the given type). > - * @value: Value of the property (when it is a single item of the given type). > + * @pointer: Pointer to the property when it is stored separately from > + * the &struct property_entry instance. > + * @value: Value of the property when it is stored inline. > */ > struct property_entry { > const char *name; > size_t length; > - bool is_array; > + bool is_inline; > enum dev_prop_type type; > union { > const void *pointer; > @@ -262,7 +264,6 @@ struct property_entry { > (struct property_entry) { \ > .name = _name_, \ > .length = (_len_) * __PROPERTY_ENTRY_ELEMENT_SIZE(_elem_), \ > - .is_array = true, \ > .type = DEV_PROP_##_Type_, \ > { .pointer = _val_ }, \ > } > @@ -293,6 +294,7 @@ struct property_entry { > (struct property_entry) { \ > .name = _name_, \ > .length = __PROPERTY_ENTRY_ELEMENT_SIZE(_elem_), \ > + .is_inline = true, \ > .type = DEV_PROP_##_Type_, \ > { .value = { ._elem_ = _val_ } }, \ > } > @@ -311,6 +313,7 @@ struct property_entry { > #define PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL(_name_) \ > (struct property_entry) { \ > .name = _name_, \ > + .is_inline = true, \ > } > > struct property_entry * Best regards
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Dear All, > > On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > > directly inside property_entry or separately. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit > e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI > driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs > which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: > > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host > dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 > > Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: > > https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt > > (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). > > The code which fails after this patch is located in > drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. Thank you for report. I think we should not have that patch in the fist place... I used to have a bad feeling about it and then forgot about it existence.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > > > directly inside property_entry or separately. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > > > Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit > > e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI > > driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs > > which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: > > > > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI > > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host > > dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 > > > > Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: > > > > https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt > > > > (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). > > > > The code which fails after this patch is located in > > drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. > > Thank you for report. > > I think we should not have that patch in the fist place... I used to have > a bad feeling about it and then forgot about it existence. Well, I think you mean the [2/6]. The $subject one really shouldn't change functionality, we must have missed something here. Anyway, I'll drop this branch from the linux-next one for now.
Hi Marek, On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Dear All, > > On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > > directly inside property_entry or separately. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit > e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI > driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs > which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: > > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI > dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host > dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 > > Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: > > https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt > > (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). > > The code which fails after this patch is located in > drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. Does the following help? If, as I expect, it does, I'll submit it formally. --- diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c index 5567ed2cddbec..fa252870c926f 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c @@ -88,10 +88,10 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc) memset(props, 0, sizeof(struct property_entry) * ARRAY_SIZE(props)); if (dwc->usb3_lpm_capable) - props[prop_idx++].name = "usb3-lpm-capable"; + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("usb3-lpm-capable"); if (dwc->usb2_lpm_disable) - props[prop_idx++].name = "usb2-lpm-disable"; + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("usb2-lpm-disable"); /** * WORKAROUND: dwc3 revisions <=3.00a have a limitation @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc) * This following flag tells XHCI to do just that. */ if (dwc->revision <= DWC3_REVISION_300A) - props[prop_idx++].name = "quirk-broken-port-ped"; + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("quirk-broken-port-ped"); if (prop_idx) { ret = platform_device_add_properties(xhci, props);
Hi Dmitry, On 13.12.2019 02:24, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, >>> as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data >>> size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored >>> directly inside property_entry or separately. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >> Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit >> e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI >> driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs >> which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: >> >> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI >> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host >> dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 >> >> Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: >> >> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=df93ba76-820d14ec-df923139-0cc47a336fae-f751d8b108bc5bdf&u=https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt >> >> (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). >> >> The code which fails after this patch is located in >> drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. > Does the following help? If, as I expect, it does, I'll submit it > formally. Yes, it fixes the issue. If possible, please add the following tags: Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> to the final patch. > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c > index 5567ed2cddbec..fa252870c926f 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c > @@ -88,10 +88,10 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc) > memset(props, 0, sizeof(struct property_entry) * ARRAY_SIZE(props)); > > if (dwc->usb3_lpm_capable) > - props[prop_idx++].name = "usb3-lpm-capable"; > + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("usb3-lpm-capable"); > > if (dwc->usb2_lpm_disable) > - props[prop_idx++].name = "usb2-lpm-disable"; > + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("usb2-lpm-disable"); > > /** > * WORKAROUND: dwc3 revisions <=3.00a have a limitation > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ int dwc3_host_init(struct dwc3 *dwc) > * This following flag tells XHCI to do just that. > */ > if (dwc->revision <= DWC3_REVISION_300A) > - props[prop_idx++].name = "quirk-broken-port-ped"; > + props[prop_idx++] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("quirk-broken-port-ped"); > > if (prop_idx) { > ret = platform_device_add_properties(xhci, props); > > Best regards
Hi Rafael, On 12.12.2019 17:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >>> On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, >>>> as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data >>>> size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored >>>> directly inside property_entry or separately. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >>> Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit >>> e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI >>> driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs >>> which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: >>> >>> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI >>> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host >>> dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 >>> >>> Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: >>> >>> https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt >>> >>> (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). >>> >>> The code which fails after this patch is located in >>> drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. >> Thank you for report. >> >> I think we should not have that patch in the fist place... I used to have >> a bad feeling about it and then forgot about it existence. > Well, I think you mean the [2/6]. > > The $subject one really shouldn't change functionality, we must have > missed something here. Nope, I was really talking about [1/6]. It looks that it revealed an issue in the DWC3 driver pointed by Dmitry. > Anyway, I'll drop this branch from the linux-next one for now. Best regards
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:47 AM Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On 12.12.2019 17:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > >>> On 08.11.2019 05:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >>>> We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, > >>>> as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data > >>>> size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored > >>>> directly inside property_entry or separately. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > >>> Today I've noticed that this patch got merged to linux-next as commit > >>> e6bff4665c595b5a4aff173848851ed49ac3bfad. Sadly it breaks DWC3/xHCI > >>> driver operation on Samsung Exynos5 SoCs (and probably on other SoCs > >>> which use DWC3 in host mode too). I get the following errors during boot: > >>> > >>> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to add properties to xHCI > >>> dwc3 12000000.dwc3: failed to initialize host > >>> dwc3: probe of 12000000.dwc3 failed with error -61 > >>> > >>> Here is a full kernel log from Exynos5250-based Snow Chromebook on KernelCI: > >>> > >>> https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20191212/arm/exynos_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-collabora/boot-exynos5250-snow.txt > >>> > >>> (lack of 'ref' clk is not related nor fatal to the driver operation). > >>> > >>> The code which fails after this patch is located in > >>> drivers/usb/dwc3/host.c. Let me know if I can help more in locating the bug. > >> Thank you for report. > >> > >> I think we should not have that patch in the fist place... I used to have > >> a bad feeling about it and then forgot about it existence. > > Well, I think you mean the [2/6]. > > > > The $subject one really shouldn't change functionality, we must have > > missed something here. > > Nope, I was really talking about [1/6]. It looks that it revealed an > issue in the DWC3 driver pointed by Dmitry. Right, but I was referring to the Andy's comment. Cheers!
diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c index d8d0dc0ca5acf..18a30fb3cc588 100644 --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c @@ -108,10 +108,7 @@ static const void *property_get_pointer(const struct property_entry *prop) if (!prop->length) return NULL; - if (prop->is_array) - return prop->pointer; - - return &prop->value; + return prop->is_inline ? &prop->value : prop->pointer; } static const void *property_entry_find(const struct property_entry *props, @@ -205,7 +202,7 @@ static void property_entry_free_data(const struct property_entry *p) const char * const *src_str; size_t i, nval; - if (p->is_array) { + if (!p->is_inline) { if (p->type == DEV_PROP_STRING && p->pointer) { src_str = p->pointer; nval = p->length / sizeof(const char *); @@ -250,7 +247,7 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, const void *pointer = property_get_pointer(src); const void *new; - if (src->is_array) { + if (!src->is_inline) { if (!src->length) return -ENODATA; @@ -264,15 +261,16 @@ static int property_entry_copy_data(struct property_entry *dst, return -ENOMEM; } - dst->is_array = true; dst->pointer = new; } else if (src->type == DEV_PROP_STRING) { new = kstrdup(src->value.str, GFP_KERNEL); if (!new && src->value.str) return -ENOMEM; + dst->is_inline = true; dst->value.str = new; } else { + dst->is_inline = true; dst->value = src->value; } diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h index 48335288c2a96..dad0ad11b55e2 100644 --- a/include/linux/property.h +++ b/include/linux/property.h @@ -227,15 +227,17 @@ static inline int fwnode_property_count_u64(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, * struct property_entry - "Built-in" device property representation. * @name: Name of the property. * @length: Length of data making up the value. - * @is_array: True when the property is an array. + * @is_inline: True when the property value is embedded in + * &struct property_entry instance. * @type: Type of the data in unions. - * @pointer: Pointer to the property (an array of items of the given type). - * @value: Value of the property (when it is a single item of the given type). + * @pointer: Pointer to the property when it is stored separately from + * the &struct property_entry instance. + * @value: Value of the property when it is stored inline. */ struct property_entry { const char *name; size_t length; - bool is_array; + bool is_inline; enum dev_prop_type type; union { const void *pointer; @@ -262,7 +264,6 @@ struct property_entry { (struct property_entry) { \ .name = _name_, \ .length = (_len_) * __PROPERTY_ENTRY_ELEMENT_SIZE(_elem_), \ - .is_array = true, \ .type = DEV_PROP_##_Type_, \ { .pointer = _val_ }, \ } @@ -293,6 +294,7 @@ struct property_entry { (struct property_entry) { \ .name = _name_, \ .length = __PROPERTY_ENTRY_ELEMENT_SIZE(_elem_), \ + .is_inline = true, \ .type = DEV_PROP_##_Type_, \ { .value = { ._elem_ = _val_ } }, \ } @@ -311,6 +313,7 @@ struct property_entry { #define PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL(_name_) \ (struct property_entry) { \ .name = _name_, \ + .is_inline = true, \ } struct property_entry *
We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array, as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored directly inside property_entry or separately. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> --- drivers/base/swnode.c | 12 +++++------- include/linux/property.h | 13 ++++++++----- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)