From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH 05.1/16] of:overlay: missing name, phandle, linux,phandle in new nodes Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:38:26 -0700 Message-ID: <3f36468b-676a-558d-4180-7129d2bf2c6c@gmail.com> References: <1539151495-8110-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Tull Cc: Rob Herring , Pantelis Antoniou , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Moritz Fischer , linux-kernel , linuxppc-dev , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/11/18 12:33, Alan Tull wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:39 AM Frank Rowand wrote: > > [resend of my messed up rejected email of a minute ago, sorry] > >> >> On 10/10/18 14:03, Frank Rowand wrote: < snip > > I understand you're quite busy with all this, but I'm wondering > whether it might be worth it go ahead and make the properties be > kernel objects also at this point. That would be an improvement for > the case of overlay properties added to non-overlay nodes, so the > lifespan of the overlay property memory can be coupled with the > properties kobj's instead of the node kobj's. > > Alan > That is one of the approaches that I am thinking about to handle the potential memory leaks from those properties. I'd like to make these changes in a step wise fashion, to let each major change get some exposure and use before moving on to the next step. Making properties into kernel objects would impact a lot of code. So not in this series. But thanks for thinking about it. -Frank