[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5eb3087cf1759f1b64c41831df86713be2a8be9d.camel@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:03:15 +0200
From: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, ardb@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, robin.murphy@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@....com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] of/address: Introduce
of_dma_get_max_cpu_address()
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 07:42 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +phys_addr_t __init of_dma_get_max_cpu_address(struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > + phys_addr_t max_cpu_addr = PHYS_ADDR_MAX;
> > + struct of_range_parser parser;
> > + phys_addr_t subtree_max_addr;
> > + struct device_node *child;
> > + phys_addr_t cpu_end = 0;
> > + struct of_range range;
> > + const __be32 *ranges;
> > + int len;
> > +
> > + if (!np)
> > + np = of_root;
>
> Requiring of_root to be passed explicitly would seem more natural
> to me than the magic NULL argument. There doesn't seem to be any
> precedent for that kind of calling convention either.
I inspired that behavior from __of_find_all_nodes(). I'll change it.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (485 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists