From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:37:46 +0400 Subject: [PATCH V3 1/1] dt: add of_get_child_count helper function In-Reply-To: <1328980929-5423-1-git-send-email-dong.aisheng@linaro.org> References: <1328980929-5423-1-git-send-email-dong.aisheng@linaro.org> Message-ID: <4F36D19A.8050409@mvista.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 11-02-2012 21:22, Dong Aisheng wrote: > Currently most code to get child count in kernel are almost same, > add a helper to implement this function for dt to use. > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng > Cc: Grant Likely > Cc: Rob Herring > --- > Hi Rob, > Since my imx pinctrl driver series still depends on the pinctrl core dt > binding patch which is still not in mainline, i'd like this pure dt patch > go separately first in case others want to use. > changes v2->v3: > Addressed some people's comments: > * do not use assignment as expression > * return 0 for non-dt case > Changes v1->v2: > * change the name from of_get_child_number to of_get_child_count > --- > include/linux/of.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index a75a831..ae242ef 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -195,6 +195,17 @@ extern struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, > for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \ > child = of_get_next_child(parent, child)) > > +static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np) > +{ > + struct device_node *child = NULL; > + int num = 0; > + > + while ((child = of_get_next_child(np, child)) != NULL) Doesn't scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? > + num++; > + > + return num; > +} > + WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/1] dt: add of_get_child_count helper function Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:37:46 +0400 Message-ID: <4F36D19A.8050409@mvista.com> References: <1328980929-5423-1-git-send-email-dong.aisheng@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1328980929-5423-1-git-send-email-dong.aisheng@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dong Aisheng Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, rob.herring@calxeda.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 11-02-2012 21:22, Dong Aisheng wrote: > Currently most code to get child count in kernel are almost same, > add a helper to implement this function for dt to use. > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng > Cc: Grant Likely > Cc: Rob Herring > --- > Hi Rob, > Since my imx pinctrl driver series still depends on the pinctrl core dt > binding patch which is still not in mainline, i'd like this pure dt patch > go separately first in case others want to use. > changes v2->v3: > Addressed some people's comments: > * do not use assignment as expression > * return 0 for non-dt case > Changes v1->v2: > * change the name from of_get_child_number to of_get_child_count > --- > include/linux/of.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index a75a831..ae242ef 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -195,6 +195,17 @@ extern struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, > for (child = of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \ > child = of_get_next_child(parent, child)) > > +static inline int of_get_child_count(const struct device_node *np) > +{ > + struct device_node *child = NULL; > + int num = 0; > + > + while ((child = of_get_next_child(np, child)) != NULL) Doesn't scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? > + num++; > + > + return num; > +} > + WBR, Sergei