On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -- 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
