> > @@ -1776,25 +1776,26 @@ int of_update_property(struct device_node *np,
> struct property *newprop)
> > if (!newprop->name)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - oldprop = of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
> > - if (!oldprop)
> > - return of_add_property(np, newprop);
> > -
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&devtree_lock, flags);
> > - next = &np->properties;
> > - while (*next) {
> > + oldprop = __of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
> > + if (!oldprop) {
> > + /* add the node */
> > + rc = __of_add_property(np, newprop);
> > + } else {
>
> if you changed this line to:
> } else while (*next) {
> then most of the other changes go away. You don't need the separate
> while loop
Yes, I will fix this.
> and the function remains largely identical aside from moving
> the __of_find_property() into the spinlock.
>
But, from the following codes, we can see that, if oldprop != NULL
Meaning that we have found it, and should just do the updatation later:
+++++++++++++++
oldprop = of_find_property(np, newprop->name, NULL);
if (!oldprop)
return of_add_property(np, newprop);
---------------
> > /* found the node */
> > newprop->next = oldprop->next;
> > *next = newprop;
> > oldprop->next = np->deadprops;
> > np->deadprops = oldprop;
> > - found = 1;
And why the 'found' flag is here is that the oldprop maybe removed
just before the spin_lock and after of_find_property().
And so use and move __of_find_property() and __of_add_property() into
the spinlock could avoid this...
Thanks,
--
BRs,
Xiubo
> > - break;
> > }
> > - next = &(*next)->next;
> > }
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
> > +
> > if (rc)
> > return rc;
> >
> > @@ -1803,9 +1804,6 @@ int of_update_property(struct device_node *np, struct
> property *newprop)
> > sysfs_remove_bin_file(&np->kobj, &oldprop->attr);
> > __of_add_property_sysfs(np, newprop);
> >
> > - if (!found)
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > -
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.4
> >
> >
>
>
--
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
