Hi! On 06/11/13 09:49, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed. > Since at that point the tree is attached. Yes, now I think it's necessary. If you consider multiple detach-attach sequences. I only thought about first fdt unflattering, which is the case in overlay_proc_release(), I suppose. So the call to of_node_clear_flag() is superfluous, but doesn't hurt. > 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. > > > -- 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
