On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:01:57 -0500, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/08/14 12:41, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>
> >>> +const struct of_device_id *of_match_machine(const struct of_device_id *matches)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> >>> + struct device_node *root;
> >>> +
> >>> + root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> >>> + if (!root)
> >>> + return NULL;
> >>> +
> >>> + match = of_match_node(matches, root);
> >>> + of_node_put(root);
> >>> + return match;
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_match_machine);
> >>
> >> I wonder if of_find_node_by_path("/") is somewhat overkill here. Perhaps
> >> simply of_node_get(of_allnodes) would be more appropriate here since the
> >> function is implemented in the core?
> >
> > of_machine_is_compatible() uses of_find_node_by_path("/") as well, of_allnodes
> > seems to be only used when during iterating. So I'd prefer to have them
> > consistent.
>
> Agreed.
Disagreed. of_machine_is_compatible should be simplified.
g.
--
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
