On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:28 PM, <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Correct existing node name detection when overlay node name has
> a unit-address.
>
> Expected test result is overlay will update the nodes and properties
> for /testcase-data-2/fairway-1/ride@100/ after the patch is applied.
>
> Before this patch is applied:
>
> Console error message near end of unittest:
> OF: Duplicate name in fairway-1, renamed to "ride@100#1"
>
> $ cd /proc/device-tree/testcase-data-2/fairway-1/
> $ # extra node: ride@100#1
> $ ls
> #address-cells linux,phandle phandle ride@200
> #size-cells name ride@100 status
> compatible orientation ride@100#1
> $ cd /proc/device-tree/testcase-data-2/fairway-1/ride@100/
> $ ls track@3/incline_up
> ls: track@3/incline_up: No such file or directory
> $ ls track@4/incline_up
> ls: track@4/incline_up: No such file or directory
>
> After this patch is applied:
>
> Console error message no longer occurs
>
> $ cd /proc/device-tree/testcase-data-2/fairway-1/
> $ # no extra node: ride@100#1
> $ ls
> #address-cells compatible name phandle ride@200
> #size-cells linux,phandle orientation ride@100 status
> $ cd /proc/device-tree/testcase-data-2/fairway-1/ride@100/
> $ ls track@3/incline_up
> track@3/incline_up
> $ ls track@4/incline_up
> track@4/incline_up
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/of/overlay.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> index c0e4ee1cd1ba..30aef51eeee5 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,24 @@ static int of_overlay_apply_single_property(struct of_overlay *ov,
> return of_changeset_update_property(&ov->cset, target, propn);
> }
>
> +static struct device_node *child_by_full_name(const struct device_node *np,
It's not really the full name which currently means the whole path (my
full_name work is going to change that), but the unit_name (at least
that's what dtc calls it).
> + const char *cname)
> +{
> + struct device_node *child;
> + struct device_node *prev;
> +
> + child = np->child;
> + while (child) {
Doesn't for_each_child_of_node() work here?
> + of_node_get(child);
> + if (!of_node_cmp(cname, kbasename(child->full_name)))
> + break;
> + prev = child;
> + child = child->sibling;
> + of_node_put(prev);
> + }
> + return child;
> +}
> +
> static int of_overlay_apply_single_device_node(struct of_overlay *ov,
> struct device_node *target, struct device_node *child)
> {
> @@ -130,7 +148,7 @@ static int of_overlay_apply_single_device_node(struct of_overlay *ov,
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> /* NOTE: Multiple mods of created nodes not supported */
> - tchild = of_get_child_by_name(target, cname);
> + tchild = child_by_full_name(target, cname);
> if (tchild != NULL) {
> /* new overlay phandle value conflicts with existing value */
> if (child->phandle)
> --
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>
--
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
