Hi Rafał, rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:09:06 +0200: > One comment below > > On 2023-10-06 18:32, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 06 Oct 2023 13:41:52 +0200: > > > >> On 2023-10-05 17:59, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> > At a first look it might seem that the presence of the of_node pointer > >> > in the nvmem device does not matter much, but in practice, after > looking > >> > deep into the DT core, nvmem_add_cells_from_dt() will simply and always > >> > return NULL if this field is not provided. As most mtd devices don't > >> > populate this field (this could evolve later), it means none of their > >> > children cells will be populated unless no_of_node is explicitly set to > >> > false. In order to clarify the logic, let's add clear check at the > >> > beginning of this helper. > >> >> I'm somehow confused by above explanation and code too. I read it > >> carefully 5 times but I can't see what exactly this change helps with. > >> >> At first look at nvmem_add_cells_from_legacy_of() I can see it uses > >> "of_node" so I don't really agree with "it might seem that the >> presence > >> of the of_node pointer in the nvmem device does not matter much". > >> >> You really don't need to look deep into DT core (actually you don't >> have > >> to look into it at all) to understand that nvmem_add_cells_from_dt() > >> will return 0 (nitpicking: not NULL) for a NULL pointer. It's all made > >> of for_each_child_of_node(). Obviously it does nothing if there is > >> nothing to loop over. > > > > That was not obvious to me as I thought it would start from /, which I > > think some other function do when you don't provide a start node. > > What about documenting that function instead of adding redundant code? Yeah would work as well. But I will just get rid of this, with your other patch that solves the fact that of_node will be there with mtd devices, it's no longer relevant. Thanks, Miquèl
