On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 07:11 AM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:52 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch adds a helper to search for a node's phandle by its path. This
>>> is especially useful when the phandle is part of an array, not just a
>>> single
>>> cell in which case qemu_devtree_setprop_phandle would be the easy choice.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf<ag...@suse.de>
>>> ---
>>> device_tree.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>> device_tree.h | 1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/device_tree.c b/device_tree.c
>>> index 6cbc5af..6745d17 100644
>>> --- a/device_tree.c
>>> +++ b/device_tree.c
>>> @@ -162,10 +162,24 @@ int qemu_devtree_setprop_string(void *fdt, const
>>> char *node_path,
>>> return r;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +uint32_t qemu_devtree_get_phandle(void *fdt, const char *path)
>>> +{
>>> + uint32_t r;
>>> +
>>> + r = fdt_get_phandle(fdt, findnode_nofail(fdt, path));
>>> + if (r<= 0) {
>>> + fprintf(stderr, "%s: Couldn't get phandle for %s: %s\n",
>>> __func__,
>>> + path, fdt_strerror(r));
>>> + exit(1);
>>
>> Is it really this functions job to terminate qemu on fail? There may be
>> scenarios where a node does not have a phandle where the client can
>> handle that. Perhaps return -1 on error and the client has to check?
>
>
> If it can, what's the point in not calling libfdt directly then?
>
Its a very good question. If the point of this function is to fail of
error though, perhaps it should have the _nofail suffix for clarity?
>
> Alex
>
