lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 2/7] nvmem: Clarify the situation when there is no DT node available
    Hi Rafał,

    rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Fri, 06 Oct 2023 13:41:52 +0200:

    > On 2023-10-05 17:59, Miquel Raynal wrote:
    > > At a first look it might seem that the presence of the of_node pointer
    > > in the nvmem device does not matter much, but in practice, after > looking
    > > deep into the DT core, nvmem_add_cells_from_dt() will simply and always
    > > return NULL if this field is not provided. As most mtd devices don't
    > > populate this field (this could evolve later), it means none of their
    > > children cells will be populated unless no_of_node is explicitly set to
    > > false. In order to clarify the logic, let's add clear check at the
    > > beginning of this helper.
    >
    > I'm somehow confused by above explanation and code too. I read it
    > carefully 5 times but I can't see what exactly this change helps with.
    >
    > At first look at nvmem_add_cells_from_legacy_of() I can see it uses
    > "of_node" so I don't really agree with "it might seem that the presence
    > of the of_node pointer in the nvmem device does not matter much".
    >
    > You really don't need to look deep into DT core (actually you don't have
    > to look into it at all) to understand that nvmem_add_cells_from_dt()
    > will return 0 (nitpicking: not NULL) for a NULL pointer. It's all made
    > of for_each_child_of_node(). Obviously it does nothing if there is
    > nothing to loop over.

    That was not obvious to me as I thought it would start from /, which I
    think some other function do when you don't provide a start node.

    > Given that for_each_child_of_node() is NULL-safe I think code from this
    > patch is redundant.

    I didn't say it was not safe, just not explicit.

    > Later you mention "no_of_node" which I agree to be a very non-intuitive
    > config option. As pointed in another thread I already sent:
    > [PATCH] Revert "nvmem: add new config option"
    > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ba3c419a-6511-480a-b5f2-6c418f9c02e7@gmail.com/t/

    I actually wanted to find again that patch and could not get my hands on
    it, but it is probably a much better fix than my other mtd patch, I
    agree with you.

    > Maybe with above patch finally things will get more clear and we don't
    > need this PATCH after all?

    Yes. Srinivas, what are your plans for the above patch?

    Thanks,
    Miquèl

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-10-06 18:33    [W:8.388 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site