Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] of: property: Skip adding device links to suppliers that aren't devices

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:02 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 7:18 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some devices need to be initialized really early and can't wait for
> > > driver core or drivers to be functional.  These devices are typically
> > > initialized without creating a struct device for their device nodes.
> > >
> > > If a supplier ends up being one of these devices, skip trying to add
> > > device links to them.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/of/property.c | 4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/property.c b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > index f16f85597ccc..21c9d251318a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/property.c
> > > @@ -1038,6 +1038,7 @@ static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device *dev, struct device_node *sup_np,
> > >         struct device *sup_dev;
> > >         int ret = 0;
> > >         struct device_node *tmp_np = sup_np;
> > > +       int is_populated;
> > >
> > >         of_node_get(sup_np);
> > >         /*
> > > @@ -1062,9 +1063,10 @@ static int of_link_to_phandle(struct device *dev, struct device_node *sup_np,
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >         }
> > >         sup_dev = get_dev_from_fwnode(&sup_np->fwnode);
> > > +       is_populated = of_node_check_flag(sup_np, OF_POPULATED);
> > >         of_node_put(sup_np);
> > >         if (!sup_dev)
> > > -               return -EAGAIN;
> > > +               return is_populated ? 0 : -EAGAIN;
> >
> > You're only using the flag in one spot and a comment would be good
> > here, so I'd just do:
> >
> > if (of_node_check_flag(sup_np, OF_POPULATED))
> >         return 0; /* Early device without a struct device */
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> I'm using the flag to keep the error handling code simple/cleaner. I
> can't do the check like that after I do a put on the sup_np.

Ah, right. Nevermind.

> Yeah, I was actually planning to add a dev_dbg() message when this
> happens and returning a -EINVAL (that'll be ignored by the caller)
> instead of -EAGAIN (that's NOT ignored by the caller).
>
> Looks like these changes go pulled into driver-core-next. So I'll send
> a delta patch to add the dbg message and also address you nit on the
> other patch.

I didn't notice Greg applied already. Don't worry about the nit then.

Rob