From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nsn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:05:24 +0100
Message-ID: <527A1464.5090901@nsn.com>
References: <1383673816-29293-1-git-send-email-panto@antoniou-consulting.com> <1383673816-29293-2-git-send-email-panto@antoniou-consulting.com> <20131105194310.GB17929@book.gsilab.sittig.org> <033B1C12-1AD8-44E3-A9BE-C216AEBA45F2@antoniou-consulting.com> <527A01C9.2090306@nsn.com> <99B265B8-F5D0-4138-BA1E-0F09C95A60F4@antoniou-consulting.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <99B265B8-F5D0-4138-BA1E-0F09C95A60F4@antoniou-consulting.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: ext Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com>
Cc: Gerhard Sittig <gsi@denx.de>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>, Matt Porter <matt.porter@linaro.org>, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>, Alison Chaiken <Alison_Chaiken@mentor.com>, Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux@gmail.com>, Jan Lubbe <jluebbe@lasnet.de>, Michael Stickel <ms@mycable.de>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>, Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@gmail.com>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>, Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>, Ionut Nicu <ioan.nicu.ext@nsn.com>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, Matt Ranostay <mranostay@gmail.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

Hi!

On 06/11/13 09:49, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
> Since at that point the tree is attached.

Yes, now I think it's necessary. If you consider multiple detach-attach sequences.
I only thought about first fdt unflattering, which is the case in overlay_proc_release(), I suppose.
So the call to of_node_clear_flag() is superfluous, but doesn't hurt. 

> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> 
>> Hello Pantelis,
>>
>> On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>>> @@ -1641,6 +1641,7 @@ int of_attach_node(struct device_node *np)
>>>>> 	np->allnext = of_allnodes;
>>>>> 	np->parent->child = np;
>>>>> 	of_allnodes = np;
>>>>> +	of_node_clear_flag(np, OF_DETACHED);
>>>>> 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
>>>>>
>>>>> 	of_add_proc_dt_entry(np);
>>>>
>>>> Does this add a call to a routine which only gets introduced in a
>>>> subsequent patch (2/5)?  If so, it would break builds during the
>>>> series, and thus would hinder bisection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right, I'll re-order on the next series.
>>
>> Is it necessary at all now, after these fixes:
>> 9e401275 of: fdt: fix memory initialization for expanded DT
>> 0640332e of: Fix missing memory initialization on FDT unflattening
>> 92d31610 of/fdt: Remove duplicate memory clearing on FDT unflattening
>>
>> ?
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Alexander Sverdlin.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.