Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1344934
| From | Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode |
| Date | 2016-02-27 08:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r6Hkt-7WW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r5GJQ-4si-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5GJQ-4si-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5HZh-5i2-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <r62Km-3eF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r64sP-4uZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
在 2016/2/25 21:43, Andy Shevchenko 写道: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> wrote: >> 在 2016/2/24 21:46, Andy Shevchenko 写道: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> 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? >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v3 0/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-24 13:30 +0100
[PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-24 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-27 08:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: designware: switch device node to fwnode Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:50 +0100
[PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button qiujiang <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-24 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: designware: add gpio-signaled acpi events support for power button Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@huawei.com> - 2016-02-25 13:20 +0100
csiph-web