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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  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@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
> 
> 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