Hi Laurent
On 30/11/2020 16:12, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:11:52PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>> Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:35:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
...
> > for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) {
> > + if (nodes[i].parent)
> > + if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) {
> > +
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a
> currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems,
> so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function.
I agree with
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the patch.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a
> currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems,
> so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:11:52PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +, Daniel Scally wrote:
> > Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a
> > currently unregistered software_node has the
Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a
currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems,
so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function.
Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko
Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally
---
Changes since RFC v3:
6 matches
Mail list logo