[PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Sudeep Holla]

Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
in case the CPUs are not yet registered.

This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
details from the caller.

Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hi Rob,

Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
at all places instead.

Regards,
Sudeep

diff --git a/include/linux/of_device.h b/include/linux/of_device.h
index b4ad8b4f8506..611502524425 100644
--- a/include/linux/of_device.h
+++ b/include/linux/of_device.h
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static inline struct device_node *of_cpu_device_node_get(int cpu)
 	struct device *cpu_dev;
 	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
 	if (!cpu_dev)
-		return NULL;
+		return of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL);
 	return of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
 }

--
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>
> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
> details from the caller.
>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
> at all places instead.

Seems fine to me.

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>
> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
> details from the caller.
>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
> at all places instead.

Seems fine to me.

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Sudeep Holla]

On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>>
>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
>> details from the caller.
>>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
>> at all places instead.
> 
> Seems fine to me.
> 
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 

Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
just to avoid all cross dependencies.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Sudeep Holla]

On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>>
>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
>> details from the caller.
>>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
>> at all places instead.
> 
> Seems fine to me.
> 
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> 

Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
just to avoid all cross dependencies.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Sudeep Holla]

On 24/07/17 17:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
>>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
>>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
>>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
>>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>>>
>>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
>>> details from the caller.
>>>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
>>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
>>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
>>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
>>> at all places instead.
>>
>> Seems fine to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>
> 
> Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
> patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
> just to avoid all cross dependencies.
> 

Sorry for the nag. Please queue this for v4.14 via your DT tree itself.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Sudeep Holla]

On 24/07/17 17:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
>>> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
>>> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
>>> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
>>> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
>>>
>>> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
>>> details from the caller.
>>>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
>>> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
>>> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
>>> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
>>> at all places instead.
>>
>> Seems fine to me.
>>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>
> 
> Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
> patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
> just to avoid all cross dependencies.
> 

Sorry for the nag. Please queue this for v4.14 via your DT tree itself.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
> >> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
> >> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
> >> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
> >> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
> >>
> >> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
> >> details from the caller.
> >>
> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
> >> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
> >> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
> >> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
> >> at all places instead.
> > 
> > Seems fine to me.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > 
> 
> Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
> patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
> just to avoid all cross dependencies.

Done.

Rob

Re: [PATCH] of: return of_get_cpu_node from of_cpu_device_node_get if CPUs are not registered

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/07/17 17:00, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> Instead of the callsites choosing between of_cpu_device_node_get if the
> >> CPUs are registered as of_node is populated by then and of_get_cpu_node
> >> when the CPUs are not yet registered as CPU of_nodes are not yet stashed
> >> thereby needing to parse the device tree, we can call of_get_cpu_node
> >> in case the CPUs are not yet registered.
> >>
> >> This will allow to use of_cpu_device_node_get anywhere hiding the
> >> details from the caller.
> >>
> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/of_device.h | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> Let me know if you are OK with this change. I keep seeing different
> >> drivers calling of_get_cpu_node or of_cpu_device_node_get based on what
> >> they are aware of or copying from other place without knowing the
> >> details. I am trying to avoid that and ask to use of_cpu_device_node_get
> >> at all places instead.
> > 
> > Seems fine to me.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > 
> 
> Thanks. Can you take it through your tree itself ? I can make any follow
> patches(if any) once this lands in the tree. I don't have any for now
> just to avoid all cross dependencies.

Done.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html