On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:31:57 +0800, Grant Likely
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 03:23:11PM +0800, Lan Chunhe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:50:45 +0800, Grant Likely
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:52:20PM +0800, Lan Chunhe wrote:
>>Currently, of_platform_bus_probe() completely skips nodes which do not
>>explicitly match the 'matches' table passed in. Or, if the root node
>>matches, then it registers all the children unconditionally. However,
>>there are situations, such as registering devices from the root node,
>>when it is desirable to register child nodes, but only if they
actually
>>represent devices. For example, the root node may contain both a
local
>>bus and a PCI device, but it also contains the chosen, aliases and
cpus
>>nodes which don't represent real devices.
>>
>>This patch changes of_platform_bus_probe() to register all nodes at
the
>>top level if they either match the matches table (the current
>>behaviour),
>>or if they have a 'compatible' value (indicating it represents a
>>device).
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Lan Chunhe <[email protected]>
>
>I believe this is my patch I wrote and pushed out to my tree back in
>October. Was this cherry-picked out of the test-devicetree branch?
Yes, I will add the signed off with you.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
>>Signed-off-by: Lan Chunhe <[email protected]>
At present I think that it is cherry-picked, and I have tested it
which
is OK.
Do you have better method?
You need to be very careful about stuff like this. Posting a patch
without attribution of the original author and has the original
signed-off-by lines stripped off is an absolute no-no. In literary
circles this would be called plagiarism.
I don't think you did it intentionally, but proper attribution is a
must, particularly because there are copyright issues involved.
Sorry, thank you that you remind me.
As for this particular patch, I'm not particularly happy with it and I
was planning to rewrite it. It is an inelegant solution and I think
the registration of devices from the device tree can be made simpler
instead of more complex like in this patch.
Now this patch registers devices from the device tree.
Then which function of which file do you will modify?
Thanks.
-Lan
g.
Thanks.
-Lan
>>---
>> drivers/of/platform.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>index 5b4a07f..02755ab 100644
>>--- a/drivers/of/platform.c
>>+++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
>>@@ -714,6 +714,8 @@ int of_platform_bus_probe(struct device_node
*root,
>> struct device_node *child;
>> struct platform_device *dev;
>> int rc = 0;
>>+ const void *compat;
>>+ const struct of_device_id *match;
>>
>> if (WARN_ON(!matches || matches == OF_NO_DEEP_PROBE))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>@@ -741,16 +743,32 @@ int of_platform_bus_probe(struct
>>device_node *root,
>> rc = of_platform_bus_create(root, matches, &dev->dev);
>> goto bail;
>> }
>>+
>>+ /*
>>+ * Register each child node if either:
>>+ * a) it has a 'compatible' value indicating they are a device, or
>>+ * b) it is specified by the 'matches' table (by name or
device_type)
>>+ * If a node is specified in the matches table, then all its
children
>>+ * also get registered.
>>+ */
>> for_each_child_of_node(root, child) {
>>- if (!of_match_node(matches, child))
>>+ compat = of_get_property(child, "compatible", NULL);
>>+ match = of_match_node(matches, child);
>>+ if (!compat && !match)
>> continue;
>>
>>- pr_debug(" match: %s\n", child->full_name);
>>+ pr_debug(" register device: %s\n", child->full_name);
>> dev = of_platform_device_create(child, NULL, parent);
>>- if (dev == NULL)
>>+ if (!dev) {
>> rc = -ENOMEM;
>>- else
>>- rc = of_platform_bus_create(child, matches,
&dev->dev);
>>+ of_node_put(child);
>>+ break;
>>+ }
>>+ if (!match)
>>+ continue;
>>+
>>+ pr_debug(" register children of: %s\n", child->full_name);
>>+ rc = of_platform_bus_create(child, matches, &dev->dev);
>> if (rc) {
>> of_node_put(child);
>> break;
>>--
>>1.5.4.5
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
