[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6tvRJP3J=7ccmH-CtjwSaZVx23KnkcMb6zgzG-pOkanXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:46:15 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@...tor.com>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@...il.com>,
Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@...net.de>,
Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
Michael Stickel <ms@...able.de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>,
Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@....com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pete Popov <pete.popov@...sulko.com>,
Dan Malek <dan.malek@...sulko.com>,
Georgi Vlaev <georgi.vlaev@...sulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] of: Add old prop argument on OF_RECONFIG_UPDATE_PROPERTY
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
<pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 22:01 , Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:33:52 +0200
>> , Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The notifier now includes the old_prop argument when updating
>>> properties, propagate this API to changeset internals while
>>> also retaining the old behaviour of retrieving the old_property
>>> when NULL is passed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
>>
>> I'm still fuzzy on the need for this patch. Is this just an optimization
>> so that the property doesn't get looked up twice? Or is there a reason
>> when the oldprop really needs to be passed in explicitly?
>>
>
> In the case of overlay's applying a property change the old property has
> been already retrieved. Passing it as an argument saves us a traversal of the
> property list.
>
> On the original series were removal was supported, the old property was required
> since you can't find the old property anymore on the node (it was on another list).
>
> When we go back to revisit the removal case, that API is useful.
Since we're not doing removal anymore, lets drop this patch.
g.
--
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