On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 06:31:11 +0100
Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:39:22 +0400, Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Patch adds of_get_next_child and of_get_next_available_child
> > stubs for non-OF builds.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/of.h | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> > index 1fd08ca..c086c1a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/of.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> > @@ -366,8 +366,17 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void)
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > -#define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
> > - while (0)
> > +static inline struct device_node *of_get_next_child(
> > + const struct device_node *node, struct device_node *prev)
> > +{
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline struct device_node *of_get_next_available_child(
> > + const struct device_node *node, struct device_node *prev)
> > +{
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> >
> > static inline struct device_node *of_get_child_by_name(
> > const struct device_node *node,
> > @@ -376,6 +385,9 @@ static inline struct device_node *of_get_child_by_name(
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > +#define for_each_child_of_node(parent, child) \
> > + while (0)
> > +
>
> Why is the for_each_child_of_node() getting moved?
Please forget this patch, this is no longer needed.
A move was to preserve the sort order for "OF" and "non-OF".
Thanks.
--
Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
