Re: [PATCH v6 02/27] of: dynamic: Fix overlayed devices not probing because of fw_devlink

Doug Anderson
2026-04-22T19:41:52Z

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 12:27 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 11:51:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 10:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 15:36, Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > + if (fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE)
> > >
> > > After commit f72e77c33e4b5657 ("device property: Make modifications
> > > of fwnode "flags" thread safe"), this must be changed to:
> > >
> > > if (fwnode_test_flag(fwnode, FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE))
> > >
> > > With this change my DT overlays are working again.
> > >
> > > I guess keeping the FWNODE_FLAG_* names, but changing their values
> > > from bit masks to bit numbers was probably not such a good idea,
> > > as it fails to catch missing conversions...
> >
> > Crud, I should have thought about that. :( Do you think it's worth it
> > to do a rename at this point to catch future problems?
>
> You can try locally with allyesconfig / allmodconfig and see the outcome.
> If there are missed cases, and their amount reasonably low, I won't bother
> in this case.

I believe I caught all of them at the time of my CL, but the problem
is in-flight stuff, right? I think the problem Geert is pointing out
isn't something I missed in my original patch but rather an
interaction between my patch and this in-flight patch.

> But for the future it's kinda rule of thumb to rename when
> semantics changed.

Noted. I've certainly done that before, but I didn't think about it in
this case.

-Doug