On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 02:53:51PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > > + resource_set_range(res, 0xC0000, SZ_128K); > > > > res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW | > > > > IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED; > > > > > > I'm wondering why not DEFINE_RES_MEM() in such cases? > > > > I guess you meant DEFINE_RES() as that seems to allow giving custom flags. > > However, DEFINE_RES*() will overwrite ->name which seems something that > > ought to not be done here. > > Okay, I haven't checked the initial state of name field here, so then > DEFINE_RES_MEM_NAMED()? Or don't we have one? There's pre-existing res->name on it and your suggestion would have resulted in overwriting it with NULL. res->name seems to be filled earlier by PCI probe code. > In any case I would rather see a one assignment for these cases than something > hidden behind proposed conversions. TBH, these DEFINE_RES*() helpers are doing hidden things such as blantantly overwriting ->name which I only realized after I had already converted to it as per your suggestion. And yes, it is possible to pass the pre-existing res->name to DEFINE_RES_NAMED() if that what you insist, though it seems doing it for the sake of DEFINE_RES*() interface rather than this code wanting to really define the resource from scratch. Given the hidden overwriting, please be careful on suggesting DEFINE_RES*() conversions as it's not as trivial as it seems. > > I found one other case from the same file though which is truly defines > > a resource from scratch. > > > -- i.
