Re: [PATCH] of: Turn of_match_node into a static inline when CONFIG_OF isn't set

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Josh Cartwright <joshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It sure would be convenient if platform_device had a 'const struct
>> of_device_id *of_id_entry' member similar to the existing struct
>> platform_device_id one, that was set up during platform device matching.
>> Most platform_driver users of of_match_node() would simply go away.
>
> Can't the entry be shared for both platform_device_id and of_device_id?
> Only one of them can be valid at the same time, right?
>
> Ideally, all xxx_device_id look like
>
>     struct xxx_device_id {
>             ... /* bus-specific ID information */
>             kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
>     };
>
> This may be formalized in some way, using a base class, but thay may
> require reordering the fields, like:
>
>     struct base_device_id {
>             kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
>             long id[0];
>     };
>

I believe this is the reason drivers have to call of_match_device:

commit b1608d69cb804e414d0887140ba08a9398e4e638
Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Wed May 18 11:19:24 2011 -0600

    drivercore: revert addition of of_match to struct device

    Commit b826291c, "drivercore/dt: add a match table pointer to struct
    device" added an of_match pointer to struct device to cache the
    of_match_table entry discovered at driver match time.  This was unsafe
    because matching is not an atomic operation with probing a driver.  If
    two or more drivers are attempted to be matched to a driver at the
    same time, then the cached matching entry pointer could get
    overwritten.

    This patch reverts the of_match cache pointer and reworks all users to
    call of_match_device() directly instead.

    Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Rob
--
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/