On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > 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.
So the patch should look something like this? @@ -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. + * + * Do not use this function. */ struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, struct device_node *prev) ... + struct device_node *of_get_next_available_child(const struct device_node *node, + struct device_node *prev) + ... + } And then (almost) all the of_get_next_child() sites should be changed to call the new function? -Hollis _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev