[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f18dea6e-5806-370c-0d83-e56f3dc118b4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 23:59:21 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: property: Get rid of code duplication in port
getting
10.12.2020 23:29, Sam Protsenko пишет:
> Both of_graph_is_present() and of_graph_get_next_endpoint() functions
> share common piece of code for obtaining the graph port. Extract it into
> separate static function to get rid of code duplication and avoid
> possible coding errors in future.
>
> Fixes: 4ec0a44ba8d7 ("of_graph: add of_graph_is_present()")
The "fixes" tag should be used only for bug-fixes and there is no bug
fixed in this patch.
> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/of/property.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> index 408a7b5f06a9..da111fcf37ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> @@ -30,13 +30,13 @@
> #include "of_private.h"
>
> /**
> - * of_graph_is_present() - check graph's presence
> + * of_graph_get_port - find the "port" node in a given node
> * @node: pointer to device_node containing graph port
> *
> - * Return: True if @node has a port or ports (with a port) sub-node,
> - * false otherwise.
> + * Return: A 'port' node pointer with refcount incremented if found or NULL
> + * otherwise. The caller has to use of_node_put() on it when done.
> */
> -bool of_graph_is_present(const struct device_node *node)
> +static struct device_node *of_graph_get_port(const struct device_node *node)
> {
> struct device_node *ports, *port;
>
> @@ -46,8 +46,22 @@ bool of_graph_is_present(const struct device_node *node)
>
> port = of_get_child_by_name(node, "port");
> of_node_put(ports);
> - of_node_put(port);
>
> + return port;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * of_graph_is_present() - check graph's presence
> + * @node: pointer to device_node containing graph port
> + *
> + * Return: True if @node has a port or ports (with a port) sub-node,
> + * false otherwise.
> + */
> +bool of_graph_is_present(const struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + struct device_node *port = of_graph_get_port(node);
> +
> + of_node_put(port);
> return !!port;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_graph_is_present);
> @@ -631,15 +645,7 @@ struct device_node *of_graph_get_next_endpoint(const struct device_node *parent,
> * parent port node.
> */
> if (!prev) {
> - struct device_node *node;
> -
> - node = of_get_child_by_name(parent, "ports");
> - if (node)
> - parent = node;
> -
> - port = of_get_child_by_name(parent, "port");
> - of_node_put(node);
> -
> + port = of_graph_get_port(parent);
> if (!port) {
> pr_err("graph: no port node found in %pOF\n", parent);
> return NULL;
>
This repeats the problem which was made once before:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1266028/#1461493
Powered by blists - more mailing lists