linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 46/77] dtc: Introduce dti_get_marker

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260119170240.47437a8f@bootlin.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:02:40 +0100
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 devicetree-compiler@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org, Hui Pu
 <hui.pu@...ealthcare.com>, Ian Ray <ian.ray@...ealthcare.com>, Luca
 Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 46/77] dtc: Introduce dti_get_marker_label()

On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:51:30 +1100
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The future introduction of orphan nodes for addons device-tree will lead
> > to more than one tree in the addons data. Those trees will be:
> >   - the classical root tree starting at the root node
> >   - trees related to orphan nodes
> > 
> > Also, an addon device-tree can have only trees based on orphan nodes. In
> > other words an addon device-tree is valid without having the classical
> > 'root' tree.
> > 
> > To prepare this change, introduce and use dti_get_marker_label().
> > 
> > dti_get_marker_label() retrieves a marker and its related node and
> > property based on the label value. It behaves in the same way as
> > get_marker_label() but it works at the struct dt_info level.
> > 
> > It handles the case where a 'root' device-tree is not present and will
> > handle orphan nodes trees as soon as they will be introduced.
> > 
> > This introduction doesn't lead to any functional changes.  
> 
> For all of these functions, if the new one is basically replacing the
> old one, don't change the name, just change the signature.

The old function is kept an used internally (move to static).
It is not a simple replacement.

When I introduce orphan node later on, those dti_xxxx() functions call
the old function multiple times. One call for the root tree and other calls
for orphan trees.

But anyway, If you prefer keeping the old name with a new signature,
I can do the following:
 - move function_name() to __function_name()
 - Update the function_name() signature and call __function_name().

Best regards
Hervé