Grant Likely wrote at Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:47 PM: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > John Bonesio wrote at Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:27 PM: > >> This patch initializes i2c controller devices in board-dt.c. The i2c controller > >> is added to tegra250.dtsi so later on-board i2c devices can be found and > >> initialized based on the device tree information. > >>... > >> @@ -598,6 +609,7 @@ static int tegra_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> i2c_dev->adapter.algo = &tegra_i2c_algo; > >> i2c_dev->adapter.dev.parent = &pdev->dev; > >> i2c_dev->adapter.nr = pdev->id; > >> + i2c_dev->adapter.dev.of_node = of_node_get(pdev->dev.of_node); > > > > It seems like users of this of_node (i.e. the probe function) could just > > access pdev->dev.of_node directly (since pdev is already passed in) > > rather than storing a copy here. At least, sdhci-tegra.c works that way. > > Still, this isn't a big deal, I think. > > Actually, using of_node_get() here is the right thing since it > increases the reference count on the of_node. However, the patch > should also do an of_node_put() in the remove hook, or in the .probe > error path. Ah OK, I was missing that the later all of of_i2c_register_devices() uses i2c_dev->adapter.dev.of_node; I was thinking that it'd just use i2c_dev->adapter.dev.parent->of_node directly, in which case we wouldn't need to copy the pointer, nor increment the refcount. So, I agree this is OK. -- nvpublic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
