On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 03:25:56PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:41 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:23:52PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > The semantics of add_links() has changed from creating device link
> > > between devices to creating fwnode links between fwnodes. So, update the
> > > implementation of add_links() to match the new semantics.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <sarava...@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/of/property.c | 150 ++++++++++++------------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > index 408a7b5f06a9..86303803f1b3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > @@ -1038,33 +1038,9 @@ static bool of_is_ancestor_of(struct device_node
> > > *test_ancestor,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > > - * of_get_next_parent_dev - Add device link to supplier from supplier
> > > phandle
> > > - * @np: device tree node
> > > - *
> > > - * Given a device tree node (@np), this function finds its closest
> > > ancestor
> > > - * device tree node that has a corresponding struct device.
> > > - *
> > > - * The caller of this function is expected to call put_device() on the
> > > returned
> > > - * device when they are done.
> > > - */
> > > -static struct device *of_get_next_parent_dev(struct device_node *np)
> > > -{
> > > - struct device *dev = NULL;
> > > -
> > > - of_node_get(np);
> > > - do {
> > > - np = of_get_next_parent(np);
> > > - if (np)
> > > - dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(&np->fwnode);
> > > - } while (np && !dev);
> > > - of_node_put(np);
> > > - return dev;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -/**
> > > - * of_link_to_phandle - Add device link to supplier from supplier phandle
> > > - * @dev: consumer device
> > > - * @sup_np: phandle to supplier device tree node
> > > + * of_link_to_phandle - Add fwnode link to supplier from supplier phandle
> > > + * @con_np: consumer device tree node
> > > + * @sup_np: supplier device tree node
> > > *
> > > * Given a phandle to a supplier device tree node (@sup_np), this
> > > function
> > > * finds the device that owns the supplier device tree node and creates a
> > > @@ -1074,16 +1050,14 @@ static struct device
> > > *of_get_next_parent_dev(struct device_node *np)
> > > * cases, it returns an error.
> > > *
> > > * Returns:
> > > - * - 0 if link successfully created to supplier
> > > - * - -EAGAIN if linking to the supplier should be reattempted
> > > + * - 0 if fwnode link successfully created to supplier
> > > * - -EINVAL if the supplier link is invalid and should not be created
> > > - * - -ENODEV if there is no device that corresponds to the supplier
> > > phandle
> > > + * - -ENODEV if struct device will never be create for supplier
> > > */
> > > -static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device *dev, struct device_node
> > > *sup_np,
> > > - u32 dl_flags)
> > > +static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device_node *con_np,
> > > + struct device_node *sup_np)
> > > {
> > > - struct device *sup_dev, *sup_par_dev;
> > > - int ret = 0;
> > > + struct device *sup_dev;
> > > struct device_node *tmp_np = sup_np;
> > >
> > > of_node_get(sup_np);
> > > @@ -1106,7 +1080,8 @@ static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device *dev,
> > > struct device_node *sup_np,
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (!sup_np) {
> > > - dev_dbg(dev, "Not linking to %pOFP - No device\n", tmp_np);
> > > + pr_debug("Not linking %pOFP to %pOFP - No device\n",
> > > + con_np, tmp_np);
> >
> > Who is calling this function without a valid dev pointer?
>
> Sorry, I plan to delete the "dev" parameter as it's not really used
> anywhere. I'm trying to do that without causing build time errors and
> making the series into digestible small patches.
>
> I can do the deletion of the parameter as a Patch 19/19. Will that work?
That's fine, but why get rid of dev? The driver core works on these
things, and we want errors/messages/warnings to spit out what device is
causing those issues. It is fine to drag around a struct device pointer
just for messages, that's to be expected, and is good.
> > And the only way it can be NULL is if fwnode is NULL, and as you control
> > the callers to it, how can that be the case?
>
> fwnode represents a generic firmware node. The to_of_node() returns
> NULL if fwnode is not a DT node. So con_np can be NULL if that
> happens. That's why we need a NULL check here. With the current code,
> that can never happen, bit I think it doesn't hurt to check in case
> there's a buggy caller. I don't have a strong opinion - so I can do it
> whichever way.
If it can't happen, no need to check for it :)
thanks,
greg k-h
