On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:33PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > On 11/02/2014 18:10, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Dear Jason Cooper, > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:53:14 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > >>> - np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, of_system_controller_table); > >>> + np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, of_system_controller_table, > >>> + &match); > >>> if (np) { > >>> - const struct of_device_id *match = > >>> - of_match_node(of_system_controller_table, np); > >> > >> > >>> - BUG_ON(!match); > >> > >> Gregory, is it ok to remove this? It was added with the original code > >> submission for mach-mvebu. mvebu_restart() will handle this > >> gracefully... > > > > The BUG_ON here can normally never be reached. If > > of_find_matching_node() returns a non-NULL result, then of_match_node() > > should also return a non-NULL result. > > > > Or I'm missing something :) > > No you're almost right! > > The only case we can get it, would be if we were declaring something like: > > static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = { > { > .compatible = "foo,bar-controller", > }, > [...] > > instead of > > static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = { > { > .compatible = "foo,bar", > .data = (void *) &bar_controller, > }, > [...] > > This test is very paranoid, so I agree to remove it. > > > Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ok, great! Josh, do you want us to take the two mvebu patches through mvebu/arm-soc? Or would you prefer to take them? thx, Jason. -- 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