lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach
Date
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
> Since at that point the tree is attached.
>
> Grant?

In one sense it is a little odd because it isn't something that any of
the existing users (of which there are 2) would be affected by. It isn't
a bad idea though. Merged patches 2 & 1.

g.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-12 03:41    [W:0.050 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site