[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 2/6] arm64: Add definitions for fwnode_handle
Hi,
On 08/06/17 22:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Goel, Sameer wrote:
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/fwnode.h b/xen/include/xen/fwnode.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db65b15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/include/xen/fwnode.h
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+/*
+ * fwnode.h - Firmware device node object handle type definition.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2015, Intel Corporation
+ * Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * Ported from Linux include/linux/fwnode.h
+ * => commit ce793486e23e0162a732c605189c8028e0910e86
+ *
+ * No functional Xen modifications.
+ */
+
+#ifndef __XEN_FWNODE_H_
+#define __XEN_FWNODE_H_
+
+enum fwnode_type {
+ FWNODE_INVALID = 0,
+ FWNODE_OF,
+ FWNODE_ACPI,
+ FWNODE_ACPI_DATA,
+ FWNODE_ACPI_STATIC,
+ FWNODE_PDATA,
+ FWNODE_IRQCHIP
Do you really need to introduce all of them?
Not really. We are interested in OF and ACPI_STATIC for now. Since the verbatim
file from Linux applied ok, I did not remove the other entries.
What's your recommendation?
Usually we keep the imported Linux definitions as-is.
If we keep as-is, the coding style should stay exactly the same. Even
Otherwise there is no point to import a verbatim copy of Linux as it
would be difficult to keep track of the changes.
In this case, I am not convinced we have a benefits to keep this code
close to Linux. It is small enough and we don't need 80% of it.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
