On 12/14/2013 08:51 AM, Hiroshi Doyu wrote:
> Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:14:04 +0200 (EET):
>
>>>> From 8f7c0404aa68f0e8dbe0babc240590f6528ecc1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:52:53 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] of: introduce of_property_for_each_phandle_with_args()
>>>>
>>>> Iterating over a property containing a list of phandles with arguments
>>>> is a common operation for device drivers. This patch adds a new
>>>> of_property_for_each_phandle_with_args() macro to make the iteration
>>>> simpler.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx>
> ....
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/of/base.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/of.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> index f807d0e..cd4ab05 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> @@ -1201,6 +1201,52 @@ void of_print_phandle_args(const char *msg, const struct of_phandle_args *args)
>>>> printk("\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +const __be32 *of_phandle_iter_next(const char *cells_name, int cell_count,
>>>> + const __be32 *cur, const __be32 *end,
>>>> + struct of_phandle_args *out_args)
>>>
>>> Having to pass in cells_name, cell_count, cur and end each time seems a
>>> little odd. Can a state structure be used instead?
>>>
>>> struct of_phandle_iter_state {
>>> const char *cells_name;
>>> int cells_count;
>>> const __be32 *cur;
>>> const __be32 *end;
>>> struct of_phandle_args out_args;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Make the caller provide one of those and fill it in with the init
>>> function.
>>
>> I rewrote this a few times and so now I have a few version of this
>> implementations :-) The above proposal is similar to the version v6+++
>> mentioned in the above patch note:
>>
>>>> v6+++:
>>>> Introduced a new struct "of_phandle_iter" to keep the state when
>>>> iterating over the list.
>>
>> which is:
>>
>> [RFC][PATCHv6+++ 01/13] of: introduce of_property_for_earch_phandle_with_args()
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2013-November/007087.html
>>
>> Stephen seemed to prefer the version without state struct. I like the
>> idea to not pass the same arguments repeatly. Instead, wrapping them
>> in a struct with state may look better.
>>
>> So if Stephen agrees, I'll rewrite the version with state struct
>> again.
>
> Stephen, let me know what you think.
It's hard to follow there have been so many revisions. As long as the
result is reasonable, I'll be OK with it. IIRC, I objected to using a
state structure for values that weren't needed by both functions, but if
both functions need the values, that's fine. I suppose even if they
don't both need the values, putting them in a state structure is OK too
if it means the patch gets finished!
--
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
