Hi Mark, > On Apr 14, 2016, at 12:59 , Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:48:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:47:57PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> Hi experts. >>> >>> My understanding of refcount of DT node is poor. >> >> The message from DT people is... don't worry about DT node refcounting. >> Do whatever you want with it, they don't care whether you have correct >> refcounting or not. >> >> The background behind that is that I've tried to fix the refcounting, >> and even had the coccinelle people generate some stuff to work on this >> issue, but DT people's attitude towards it is "don't bother". >> >> So yes, people may get it wrong, but it seems it's something that DT >> people want ignored. > > I'm not sure that's quite fair; the last discussion I recall about this > ended up concluding that we need a better API, rather than papering over > problems. > > That said, there isn't much obvious progress on that front. > > Frank, Pantelis, Rob, were there any conclusions on this from ELC, or is > this something that needs someone to propose something? > Frank mentioned that he wants a new API. I have some ideas about it too. My take is that drivers should never do reference counting, we have to figure out a way for DT access using copy semantics or locks. References would still be required for core DT code, but that’s a sane subset. > Mark. > > [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/153777 Regards — Pantelis -- 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
