| Message ID | 20190507044801.250396-1-dianders@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | of: Add dummy for of_node_is_root if not CONFIG_OF | expand |
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:48 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > We'll add a dummy to just return false. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org> > --- > > include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void) > return false; > } > > +static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent, > const char *compatible) > { > -- > 2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog >
On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > We'll add a dummy to just return false. A more complete explanation of why this is needed please. My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c fails??? -Frank > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > > include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void) > return false; > } > > +static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent, > const char *compatible) > { >
Hi, On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > We'll add a dummy to just return false. > > A more complete explanation of why this is needed please. > > My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c > fails??? Ah, sorry. Needed for: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com -Doug
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:59 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > We'll add a dummy to just return false. > > > > A more complete explanation of why this is needed please. > > > > My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c > > fails??? > > Ah, sorry. Needed for: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com Should I take both patches via pstore, or should both go via DT tree?
On 5/7/19 10:59 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: >>> We'll add a dummy to just return false. >> >> A more complete explanation of why this is needed please. >> >> My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c >> fails??? > > Ah, sorry. Needed for: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com Got it. I went and looked at that. I think a better approach would be to check parent node not "/reserved-memory". I am making this suggestion in that email thread. -Frank > > > > -Doug > . >
Hi, On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:17 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/7/19 10:59 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >>> We'll add a dummy to just return false. > >> > >> A more complete explanation of why this is needed please. > >> > >> My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c > >> fails??? > > > > Ah, sorry. Needed for: > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com > > Got it. I went and looked at that. I think a better approach would be to > check parent node not "/reserved-memory". I am making this suggestion in > that email thread. OK. Assuming that people are happy with that approach [1], we should consider this patch abandoned. Thanks for your reviews! [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190508154832.241525-1-dianders@chromium.org -Doug
diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644 --- a/include/linux/of.h +++ b/include/linux/of.h @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void) return false; } +static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node) +{ + return false; +} + static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent, const char *compatible) {
We'll add a dummy to just return false. Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)