Re: [PATCH 1/5] OF: Clear detach flag on attach

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Alexander,

I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
Since at that point the tree is attached.

Grant?

Regards

-- Pantelis

On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:

> Hello Pantelis,
> 
> On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> @@ -1641,6 +1641,7 @@ int of_attach_node(struct device_node *np)
>>>> 	np->allnext = of_allnodes;
>>>> 	np->parent->child = np;
>>>> 	of_allnodes = np;
>>>> +	of_node_clear_flag(np, OF_DETACHED);
>>>> 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags);
>>>> 
>>>> 	of_add_proc_dt_entry(np);
>>> 
>>> Does this add a call to a routine which only gets introduced in a
>>> subsequent patch (2/5)?  If so, it would break builds during the
>>> series, and thus would hinder bisection.
>>> 
>> 
>> You're right, I'll re-order on the next series.
> 
> Is it necessary at all now, after these fixes:
> 9e401275 of: fdt: fix memory initialization for expanded DT
> 0640332e of: Fix missing memory initialization on FDT unflattening
> 92d31610 of/fdt: Remove duplicate memory clearing on FDT unflattening
> 
> ?
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Alexander Sverdlin.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/