[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5255128F.8090107@mm-sol.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:23:43 +0300
From: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC: Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwrng: msm: Add PRNG support for MSM SoC's
Hi Stephen,
On 10/04/2013 07:37 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/04/13 09:31, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>>
>>>> +static int msm_rng_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct msm_rng *rng;
>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>> + struct resource res;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + np = of_node_get(pdev->dev.of_node);
>>>> + if (!np)
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> This is unnecessary.
>> I used this call because CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC could be enabled at some
>> time. Isn't that possible? I saw that of_node_get|put is used in .probe
>> on few places in drivers.
>
> So far we aren't selecting that config on ARM.
>
> If you look at of_device_alloc() you'll see
>
> dev->dev.of_node = of_node_get(np);
>
> so any platform devices created from of_platform_populate won't have
> their of_node go away.
Thanks for the pointers, it makes sense. I'll remove the calls to
of_node_get|put.
regards,
Stan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists