| Message ID | 1500904513-10483-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the > CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node > when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed > thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node > in case the CPUs are not yet registered. > > This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the > details from the caller. > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > --- > include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Hi Rob, > > Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different > drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what > they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the > details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get > at all places instead. Seems fine to me. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the >> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node >> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed >> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node >> in case the CPUs are not yet registered. >> >> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the >> details from the caller. >> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> --- >> include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different >> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what >> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the >> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get >> at all places instead. > > Seems fine to me. > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now just to avoid all cross dependencies. -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 24/07/17 17:32, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the >>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node >>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed >>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node >>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered. >>> >>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the >>> details from the caller. >>> >>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> --- >>> include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different >>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what >>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the >>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get >>> at all places instead. >> >> Seems fine to me. >> >> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> >> > > Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow > patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now > just to avoid all cross dependencies. > Sorry for the nag. Please queue this for v4.14 via your DT tree itself. -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > >> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the > >> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node > >> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed > >> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node > >> in case the CPUs are not yet registered. > >> > >> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the > >> details from the caller. > >> > >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> > >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > >> --- > >> include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> Hi Rob, > >> > >> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different > >> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what > >> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the > >> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get > >> at all places instead. > > > > Seems fine to me. > > > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > > > Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow > patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now > just to avoid all cross dependencies. Done. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/of_device.h b/include/linux/of_device.h index b4ad8b4f8506..611502524425 100644 --- a/include/linux/of_device.h +++ b/include/linux/of_device.h @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static inline struct device_node *of_cpu_device_node_get(int cpu) struct device *cpu_dev; cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu); if (!cpu_dev) - return NULL; + return of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL); return of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node); }
Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node in case the CPUs are not yet registered. This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the details from the caller. Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Hi Rob, Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get at all places instead. Regards, Sudeep -- 2.7.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html