Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:09:06 +0200 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12 2/7] nvmem: Clarify the situation when there is no DT node available |
| |
One comment below
On 2023-10-06 18:32, Miquel Raynal wrote: > 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.
What about documenting that function instead of adding redundant code?
>> 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.
-- Rafał Miłecki
| |