From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: OMAP2+: only search for GPMC DT child nodes on probe Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:27:20 -0500 Message-ID: <516F13B8.20601@ti.com> References: <1366230852-2440-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:36621 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965687Ab3DQV1c (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:27:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1366230852-2440-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Tony Lindgren , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Lars Poeschel , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap On 04/17/2013 03:34 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > The GPMC DT probe function use for_each_node_by_name() to search > child device nodes of the GPMC controller. But this function does > not use the GPMC device node as the root of the search and instead > search across the complete Device Tree. > > This means that any device node on the DT that is using any of the > GPMC child nodes names searched for will be returned even if they > are not connected to the GPMC, making the gpmc_probe_xxx_child() > function to fail. > > Fix this by using the GPMC device node as the search root so the > search will be restricted to its children. > > Reported-by: Lars Poeschel > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > --- > > Changes since v1 (suggested by Jon Hunter): > - Split the search for GPMC child nodes and only warn if a > child probe fails on two different patches > - Don't probe all childs unnecesary if a previous matched > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 33 ++++++++++----------------------- > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > index ed946df..6166847 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > @@ -1520,32 +1520,19 @@ static int gpmc_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev) > return ret; > } > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "nand") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_nand_child(pdev, child); > - if (ret < 0) { > - of_node_put(child); > - return ret; > - } > - } > + for_each_child_of_node(pdev->dev.of_node, child) { > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "onenand") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_onenand_child(pdev, child); > - if (ret < 0) { > - of_node_put(child); > - return ret; > - } > - } > + if (!child->name) > + continue; > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "nor") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_generic_child(pdev, child); > - if (ret < 0) { > - of_node_put(child); > - return ret; > - } > - } > + if (of_node_cmp(child->name, "nand") == 0) > + ret = gpmc_probe_nand_child(pdev, child); > + else if (of_node_cmp(child->name, "onenand") == 0) > + ret = gpmc_probe_onenand_child(pdev, child); > + else if (of_node_cmp(child->name, "ethernet") == 0 || > + of_node_cmp(child->name, "nor") == 0) > + ret = gpmc_probe_generic_child(pdev, child); > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "ethernet") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_generic_child(pdev, child); > if (ret < 0) { I think that we need to make sure that "ret" is initialised to 0 at the beginning of the function. We should not have a case where the child name does not match but who knows. Actually that raises another point, should we have an "else" clause at the end that WARNs on "unknown/unsupported child" device? > of_node_put(child); > return ret; > Otherwise looks great. Cheers Jon