[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EAE4A1B8-2019-4073-A26F-90E73C2ED394@konsulko.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:14:13 +0200
From: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
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
Hi Grant,
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 14:46 , Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Fine, I’ll have to rework the overlay patches however.
> g.
Regards
— Pantelis
--
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