RE: [PATCH v3 2/4] docs, xen/arm: Introduce static heap memory

[Henry Wang <Henry.Wang@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > I would not block this series on the renaming for existing property (what
> > matter is the new ones are consistent with the discussion). The renaming
> could
> > be done afterwards. I would even say post the feature freeze on Friday
> because
> > this could be considered as a bug fix (assuming you agree as the release
> > manager :)).
> 
> I very much agree that we should be consistent. Consistency aside, I
> would prefer *not* to introduce #xen,static-heap-address-cells and
> #xen,static-heap-size-cells and instead reuse the regular #address-cells
> and #size-cells. I think there is no reason why we shouldn't.
> 
> I was about to write something about it a couple of days ago but then I
> noticed that we had already introduced #xen,static-mem-address-cells and
> #xen,static-mem-size-cells. In order to be consistent I didn't say
> anything and gave my ack.
> 
> But actually I think it is better to get rid of them all. I think we
> should:
> 
> 1) do not introduce #xen,static-heap-address-cells and
> #xen,static-heap-size-cells in this series, instead rely on
> #address-cells and #size-cells. Please write in the binding that the
> number of address cells and size cells of xen,static-heap is determined
> by the parent #address-cells and #size-cells. (It has to be the parent
> because that is how #address-cells and #size-cells are defined.)

Ack, I will do in v5, also drop your previous ack so you can take a look
again. 

> 
> 2) Also remove "#xen,static-mem-address-cells" and
> "#xen,static-mem-size-cells", and also use #address-cells and
> #size-cells for xen,static-mem as well. I think we should do that in
> this release for consistency. Any volunteers? :-)

I will add a new patch in the end of this series for static-mem cleanup.
This can be merged later as a bug fix according to the discussion with
Julien.

Kind regards,
Henry

> 
> It is not going to break anything because, not only static-mem is tech
> preview, but also it is very likely that if someone was using
> #xen,static-heap-address-cells it would be setting it to the same value
> as #address-cells. So in the vast majority of cases it would continue to
> work as expected (not that we couldn't change it anyway, given that it
> is a tech preview.)
> 
> So I am aligned with Julien on this.