On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the > >> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node > >> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed > >> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node > >> in case the CPUs are not yet registered. > >> > >> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the > >> details from the caller. > >> > >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> Hi Rob, > >> > >> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different > >> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what > >> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the > >> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get > >> at all places instead. > > > > Seems fine to me. > > > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow > patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now > just to avoid all cross dependencies. Done. Rob -- 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
