Hi Simon,
-----"Simon Glass" sjg@chromium.org schrieb: -----
Hi Wolfgang,
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 06:58, Wolfgang Wallner wolfgang.wallner@br-automation.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
-----"Simon Glass" sjg@chromium.org schrieb: -----
The current code uses an address but a pointer would result in fewer casts. Also it repeats the alignment code in a lot of places so this would be better done in a helper function.
Update write_acpi_tables() to make use of the new acpi_ctx structure, adding a few helpers to clean things up.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v2: None
arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- include/acpi_table.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++ lib/acpi/acpi_table.c | 22 ++++++++++ test/dm/acpi.c | 28 +++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
[..]
+/**
- acpi_align() - Align the ACPI output pointer to a 16-byte boundary
- @ctx: ACPI context
- */
+void acpi_align(struct acpi_ctx *ctx);
Nit: The function names acpi_align() and acpi_align_large() are both vague on the exact alignment that is used. How about acpi_align16() and acpi_align64() ?
There is I think only one case where we use 64. Most of the time it is 16. So I thought it was a bit silly to put 16 in the function name - it is the standard alignment.
Perhaps I should use align() and align64()?
Yes, I'm fine with that.
regards, Wolfgang