From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: only search for GPMC DT child nodes on probe Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:59:13 -0500 Message-ID: <516EF101.4030604@ti.com> References: <1366216651-11164-1-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: In-Reply-To: <1366216651-11164-1-git-send-email-javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Tony Lindgren , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Lars Poeschel , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/17/2013 11:37 AM, 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. > > Also, if any of the GPMC child nodes fails, this shouldn't make > the whole gpmc_probe_dt() function to fail. It is better to just > WARN and allow other devices probe function to succeed. > > Reported-by: Lars Poeschel > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > index ed946df..f10d735 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > @@ -1520,35 +1520,28 @@ 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) { > + > + if (!child->name) > + continue; > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "onenand") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_onenand_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); > + if (WARN_ON(ret < 0)) I am wondering if we should use "WARN" here and say "probing gpmc child %s failed\n" and print the fullname. Otherwise it may be unclear which device failed. > + of_node_put(child); > } > - } > > - 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, "onenand") == 0) { This could also be an "else if" to save comparing each child unnecessarily if it previously matched. That way you could just have a single WARN statement at the end of the loop and condense this code. > + ret = gpmc_probe_onenand_child(pdev, child); > + if (WARN_ON(ret < 0)) > + of_node_put(child); > } > - } > > - for_each_node_by_name(child, "ethernet") { > - ret = gpmc_probe_generic_child(pdev, child); > - if (ret < 0) { > - of_node_put(child); > - return ret; > + if (of_node_cmp(child->name, "ethernet") == 0 || > + of_node_cmp(child->name, "nor") == 0) { > + ret = gpmc_probe_generic_child(pdev, child); > + if (WARN_ON(ret < 0)) > + of_node_put(child); > } > } Otherwise looks good. Cheers Jon