From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756223Ab3KFKGC (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 05:06:02 -0500 Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net ([93.183.12.32]:11156 "EHLO demumfd001.nsn-inter.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756072Ab3KFKF6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 05:05:58 -0500 Message-ID: <527A1464.5090901@nsn.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:05:24 +0100 From: Alexander Sverdlin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext Pantelis Antoniou CC: Gerhard Sittig , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Stephen Warren , Matt Porter , Koen Kooi , Alison Chaiken , Dinh Nguyen , Jan Lubbe , Michael Stickel , Guenter Roeck , Dirk Behme , Alan Tull , Sascha Hauer , Michael Bohan , Ionut Nicu , Michal Simek , Matt Ranostay , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach 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> In-Reply-To: <99B265B8-F5D0-4138-BA1E-0F09C95A60F4@antoniou-consulting.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 1628 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1383732328-00004A43-02F4C481/0-0/0-0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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.