[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87eb8114-0b52-6324-43b2-aa8193808637@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:57:28 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] of/fdt: Fix defined but not used compiler warning
On 2019/6/14 21:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:29 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/12/19 10:00 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kefeng,
>>>>
>>>> If Rob agrees, I'd like to see one more change in this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Since the only caller of of_fdt_match() is of_flat_dt_match(),
>>>> can you move the body of of_fdt_match() into of_flat_dt_match()
>>>> and eliminate of_fdt_match()?
>>>
>>> That's fine as long as we think there's never any use for of_fdt_match
>>> after init? Fixup of nodes in an overlay for example.
>>
>> We can always re-expose the functionality as of_fdt_match() in the future
>> if the need arises. But Stephen's recent patch was moving in the opposite
>> direction, removing of_fdt_match() from the header file and making it
>> static.
>
> Yes, we can, but it is just churn if we think it is likely needed.
>
> OTOH, we probably want users to just use libfdt API directly and
> should add this to libfdt if needed.
>
> So yes, please implement Frank's suggestion.
OKļ¼done in patch v2.
>
> Rob
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists