Re: [RFC PATCH 46/77] dtc: Introduce dti_get_marker_label()

[Herve Codina]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:51:30 +1100
David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The future introduction of orphan nodes for addons device-tree will lead
> > to more than one tree in the addons data. Those trees will be:
> >   - the classical root tree starting at the root node
> >   - trees related to orphan nodes
> > 
> > Also, an addon device-tree can have only trees based on orphan nodes. In
> > other words an addon device-tree is valid without having the classical
> > 'root' tree.
> > 
> > To prepare this change, introduce and use dti_get_marker_label().
> > 
> > dti_get_marker_label() retrieves a marker and its related node and
> > property based on the label value. It behaves in the same way as
> > get_marker_label() but it works at the struct dt_info level.
> > 
> > It handles the case where a 'root' device-tree is not present and will
> > handle orphan nodes trees as soon as they will be introduced.
> > 
> > This introduction doesn't lead to any functional changes.  
> 
> For all of these functions, if the new one is basically replacing the
> old one, don't change the name, just change the signature.

The old function is kept an used internally (move to static).
It is not a simple replacement.

When I introduce orphan node later on, those dti_xxxx() functions call
the old function multiple times. One call for the root tree and other calls
for orphan trees.

But anyway, If you prefer keeping the old name with a new signature,
I can do the following:
 - move function_name() to __function_name()
 - Update the function_name() signature and call __function_name().

Best regards
Hervé