On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 12:33:22PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:01 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:29:44 -0800 > > Deepak Saxena <deepak_sax...@mentor.com> wrote: > > > > > We only return the next child if the device is available. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hollis Blanchard <hollis_blanch...@mentor.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <deepak_sax...@mentor.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/of/base.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c > > > index 5d269a4..81b2601 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/of/base.c > > > +++ b/drivers/of/base.c > > > @@ -321,6 +321,8 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_parent(struct > > > device_node *node) > > > * > > > * Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use > > > * of_node_put() on it when done. > > > + * > > > + * Does not return nodes marked unavailable by a status property. > > > */ > > > struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, > > > struct device_node *prev) > > > @@ -330,7 +332,7 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct > > > device_node *node, > > > read_lock(&devtree_lock); > > > next = prev ? prev->sibling : node->child; > > > for (; next; next = next->sibling) > > > - if (of_node_get(next)) > > > + if (of_device_is_available(next) && of_node_get(next)) > > > break; > > > of_node_put(prev); > > > read_unlock(&devtree_lock); > > > > This seems like too low-level a place to put this. Some code may know > > how to un-disable a device in certain situations, or it may be part of > > debug code trying to dump the whole device tree, etc. Looking > > further[1], I see a raw version of this function, but not other things > > like of_find_compatible_node. > > Yeah I agree. I think we'll eventually end up with __ versions of all or > lots of them. Not to mention there might be cases you've missed where > code expects to see unavailable nodes. The right approach is to add > _new_ routines that don't return unavailable nodes, and convert code > that you know wants to use them.
Actually, I don't think we really want these status-skipping
iterators at all. The device tree iterators should give us the device
tree, as it is. Those old-style drivers which seach for a node rather
than using the bus probing logic can keep individual checks of the
status property until they're converted to the new scheme.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
