On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 07:54 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > thanks for this clean-up series! I was not aware how far the duplication > > has spread over time. > > > > On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 21:36 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > >> The OF graph API leaves too much of the graph walking to clients when > >> in many cases the driver doesn't care about accessing the port or > >> endpoint nodes. The drivers typically just want the device connected via > >> a particular graph connection. of_graph_get_remote_node provides this > >> functionality. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/of/base.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/linux/of_graph.h | 8 ++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c > >> index d4bea3c797d6..ea18ab16b92c 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/of/base.c > >> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c > >> @@ -2469,3 +2469,31 @@ struct device_node *of_graph_get_remote_port(const struct device_node *node) > >> return of_get_next_parent(np); > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_graph_get_remote_port); > >> + > >> +struct device_node *of_graph_get_remote_node(const struct device_node *node, > >> + int port, int endpoint) > > > > I think this should have a documentation comment, similar to the > > of_graph_get_endpoint_by_regs one, as it is not really clear from the > > function name that the returned device node is the parent (or > > grandparent) device node containing the remote port to the specified > > node & port & endpoint. > > Also it might be interesting to the user that -1 is a wildcard value for > > port / endpoint. > > I really want to not allow using a wildcard here. Drivers should know > what port they want (or iterate over all of them). It didn't look like > any drivers were depending on the wildcard, but were just using -1 for > "no reg property" when really that should 0. Of course, I may have > missed something. > > I guess I could enforce port/endpoint > 0 here as there's no existing users. That sounds reasonable. If it works for all users, enforcing >= 0 should be fine, but in that case I'd change the parameters to be unsigned. regards Philipp _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
