From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] of/device: Make of_get_next_child() check status properties From: Michael Ellerman To: Scott Wood In-Reply-To: <20101208150102.69b8062b@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> References: <20101208192944.GE32473@mentor.com> <20101208150102.69b8062b@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-g4gQv5IEbk++n+xcg5Q1" Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:33:22 +1100 Message-ID: <1291858402.2962.2.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Deepak Saxena Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-g4gQv5IEbk++n+xcg5Q1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:01 -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:29:44 -0800 > Deepak Saxena wrote: >=20 > > We only return the next child if the device is available. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Hollis Blanchard > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena > > --- > > drivers/of/base.c | 4 +++- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c > > index 5d269a4..81b2601 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/base.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/base.c > > @@ -321,6 +321,8 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_parent(struct devic= e_node *node) > > * > > * Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use > > * of_node_put() on it when done. > > + * > > + * Does not return nodes marked unavailable by a status property. > > */ > > struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct device_node *node, > > struct device_node *prev) > > @@ -330,7 +332,7 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_child(const struct = device_node *node, > > read_lock(&devtree_lock); > > next =3D prev ? prev->sibling : node->child; > > for (; next; next =3D next->sibling) > > - if (of_node_get(next)) > > + if (of_device_is_available(next) && of_node_get(next)) > > break; > > of_node_put(prev); > > read_unlock(&devtree_lock); >=20 > This seems like too low-level a place to put this. Some code may know > how to un-disable a device in certain situations, or it may be part of > debug code trying to dump the whole device tree, etc. Looking > further[1], I see a raw version of this function, but not other things > like of_find_compatible_node. Yeah I agree. I think we'll eventually end up with __ versions of all or lots of them. Not to mention there might be cases you've missed where code expects to see unavailable nodes. The right approach is to add _new_ routines that don't return unavailable nodes, and convert code that you know wants to use them. cheers --=-g4gQv5IEbk++n+xcg5Q1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk0AMeAACgkQdSjSd0sB4dLHQACgvV076SSf06vhnGraJVr2F0eV EgcAn1dS4ifJXTIRL5S8fiqPTcrG1Mka =5nUg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-g4gQv5IEbk++n+xcg5Q1--