lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2-UPDATE2 3/4] resource: Add device-managed insert/remove_resource()
From
Date
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 14:44 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the usage patch from Toshi [1] (copied below).  It is indeed a
> > > resource injected by nfit / nvdimm bus implementation.  We just
> > > happen
> > > to support nfit and libnvdimm as modules.
> > >
> > > The goal of these patches is to use the ACPI NFIT data to create a
> > > "Persistent Memory" rather than "reserved" resource.  This is for
> > > platform-firmware implementations that use E820-Type2 rather than
> > > E820-Type7 to describe pmem.
> >
> > So my worry is that there is likely exactly one or two of these kinds
> > of sites.
> >
> > Why couldn't they just use insert_resource() and then remove it
> > manually?
>
> You mean instead of introducing a devm_insert_resource() as a helpful
> first-class-citizen api, just arrange for the resource to be inserted
> locally?  Sure.
>
> I assume Toshi was looking to keep the devm semantics like the rest of
> the nfit driver, but we can do that locally with devm_add_action() and
> skip the new general purpose api.

Yes, I prefer the devm semantics.  insert_resource() and remove_resource()
are not exported interfaces.  So, with devm_add_action(), we still need to
introduce built-in exported wrappers for insert/remove_resource(), unless
we change to export them directly.  Since we need to export "something", I
think it is better to export their devm interfaces.

Thanks,
-Toshi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-09 00:41    [W:0.042 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site