Re: [PATCH] Patch to improve device tree structure

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 11/18/2014 7:10 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:52:56 -0800
> , Gaurav Minocha <gaurav.minocha.os-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>  wrote:
>> This patch improves the implementation of device tree structure.
>>
>> Traditional child and sibling linked list in device tree structure
>> is removed and is replaced by list_head (i.e. circular doubly linked
>>  list) already available in Linux kernel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gaurav Minocha <gaurav.minocha.os-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> Hi Gaurav,
> 
> So, after you've done this work, I need to you rebase it (and of course
> it is non-trivial) onto linux-next. I've already got a patch queued up
> which gets rid of the of_allnodes/allnext list which will have conflicts
> with this patch.
> 
> I'll make comments below where still relevant.

Grant,

My first reaction to this patch was that moving to using struct list_head
made the code less readable plus increased the size of struct device_node.

I reworked the changes to drivers/of/base.c to see if I could make
it a little more readable.  And I see below that you also have some
suggestions that make it more readable.

Even after that, I'm still feeling that the gain of moving to a more
standard list data type might not be greater than the downsides in
terms of readability and space.  The current list implementation does
seem like a decent fit to the problem space.

</ opinion, take it for what it is worth >

-Frank


< snip - original patch, plus Grant's comments >

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html