Re: [PATCH v8 24/25] powerpc: Adopt nvram module for PPC64
From: Finn Thain <hidden>
Date: 2019-01-04 08:45:35
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 4:29 AM Finn Thain [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:quoted
With the current method, it does seem odd to have a single per-architecture instance of the exported structure containing function pointers. This doesn't give us the flexibility of having multiple copies in the kernel the way that ppc_md does, but it adds overhead compared to simply exporting the functions directly.You're right, there is overhead here. With a bit of auditing, wrappers like the one you quoted (which merely checks whether or not a ppc_md method is implemented) could surely be avoided. The arch_nvram_ops methods are supposed to optional (that is, they are allowed to be NULL). We could call exactly the same function pointers though either ppc_md or arch_nvram_ops. That would avoid the double indirection.I think you can have a 'const' structure in the __ro_after_init section, so without changing anything else, powerpc could just copy the function pointers from ppc_md into the arch_nvram_ops at early init time, which should ideally simplify your implementation as well.
Does this require removing the 'const' from the powerpc arch_nvram_ops definition? That would mean removing the 'const' from the declaration in nvram.h, which means removing 'const' for every other instance of that struct too. That's what happened when I tried removing the ppc_md.nvram_* methods entirely and assigning the same function pointers to arch_nvram_ops methods instead. Apparently all instances of arch_nvram_ops have to be const or none of them. Otherwise gcc says, "error: conflicting type qualifiers for 'arch_nvram_ops'". --
Arnd