On 05/29/2012 09:01 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 09:39:19AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/26/2012 10:52 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote: >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On 05/25/2012 07:36 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> ... >>>> If we don't do that, [lock ranges[i].gc] I would argue that we >>>> shouldn't store ranges[i].gc, since it might become invalid - I >>>> believe the only use of it is withinthis function? >>>> >>> In my option, i think it's ok to store it since they're just some data >>> to describe >>> hw properties. The gpio function may become invalid but not data. >>> Is it reasonable to you? >> >> The problem is that if someone tries to dereference the gc field, and >> it's no longer valid, which could cause an OOPS. Perhaps we can get away >> just with a comment in the struct definition indicating that this field >> should only be used by drivers that provided the gc field directly >> rather than having it set up by DT, but then why even store it when >> creating the ranges from DT in that case? > > Yes, you're right. > Maybe we could both not store the gc filed for DT (currently we did not see > the need to store it for dt, right?) and add a comment in the struct > definition > as you said. For non-dt users the driver owner should manage that field > correctly with lock since it's provided directly by driver. > Is that ok?
Yes, that makes sense to me. Thanks. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
