On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 14:44 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@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
