On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:35 -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > 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)
Haha. No it should say "this function doesn't lie to you". And the patch should say "this patch _doesn't_ subtly change all callers of of_get_next_child() without carefully auditing them". cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev