[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLQBJL11XzmvSyD61syHKQKmzBVuUupo_Ctupaj8nxvVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:00:36 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if
CPUs are not registered
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>
> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
> details from the caller.
>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> ---
> include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
> at all places instead.
Seems fine to me.
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists