Hi Alexander, I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed. Since at that point the tree is attached. Grant? Regards -- Pantelis 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
