在 2016/2/25 21:43, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> - why do you use fwnode_*() instead of device_property_*() calls? >>> What prevents us to move to device property API directly? >> Yes, it looks more reasonable by using devce_property. Howerver, >> device_get_child_node_count was used here to find each child node. This >> API output the fwnode_handle for each child node directly, but device >> property APIs need 'dev' data instead. Actually, the effects of fwnode_*() >> and device_*() are the same. So, I used fwnode_*() APIs here. > > Right, looks okay then. > >>>> - node = dev->of_node; >>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node) >>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !(dev->of_node)) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> So, since you converted to fwnode, do you still need this check? >>> >> Although this patch coverted device node to fwnode, only DTs binding was >> supported here, and patch2 support ACPI will remove this check. > > Yes, but like I said below device_get_child_node_count() will take > care of that, will it? Right, device_get_child_node_count() will take of it, this should be removed. > >>>> >>>> - nports = of_get_child_count(node); >>>> + nports = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>> if (nports == 0) >>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> >>> ...I think this one fail if it will not found any child. >> This one fail? yes, it will return to failure. >> I am not very clear here. > > See above. Here, device_get_child_node_count will return ZERO if there is not any child. So, I think this will work ok, will it? > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
