On Mon 2020-01-20 16:19:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 07:38:29PM +0800, lijiazi wrote:
> > Add two device node flags, and use OF_DEVICE_NODE_FLAG_MAX instead
> > of sizeof("xxxx").
>
> ...
>
> > tbuf[1] = of_node_check_flag(dn, OF_DETACHED) ? 'd' : '-';
> > tbuf[2] = of_node_check_flag(dn, OF_POPULATED) ? 'P' : '-';
> > tbuf[3] = of_node_check_flag(dn, OF_POPULATED_BUS) ? 'B' : '-';
>
> > - tbuf[4] = 0;
>
> This is fine to leave untouched. See below.
>
> > + tbuf[4] = of_node_check_flag(dn, OF_OVERLAY) ? 'O' : '-';
> > + tbuf[5] = of_node_check_flag(dn, OF_OVERLAY_FREE_CSET) ? 'F' : '-';
>
> These two should be part of patch 1, which in turn should be last in the series.
>
> > + tbuf[OF_DEVICE_NODE_FLAG_MAX] = 0;
>
> This one also, but in a form of explicit number, if you afraid of problems
> here, we may add something like
I agree that explicit number would be better here:
tbuf[6] = 0;
And I like the build check. I would even check for the exact number.
It would help to keep the code updated when the number is modified.
BUILD_BUG_ON(OF_DEVICE_NODE_FLAG_MAX != 6);
Finally, I would put all three changes into the same patch. And
remove the comment above OF_DEVICE_NODE_FLAG_MAX definition
completely.
Best Regards,
Petr
