On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Kuninori Morimoto <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Iwamatsu-san > > Thank you for this patch. > > Small comment from me > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF > (snip) >> +sh_eth_parse_dt(struct device *dev, struct net_device *ndev) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; >> + struct sh_eth_plat_data *pdata; > ... >> +#else >> +static struct sh_eth_plat_data * >> +sh_eth_parse_dt(struct device *dev, struct net_device *ndev) >> +{ >> + return NULL; >> +} >> +#endif > > (snip) > >> static int sh_eth_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> { > ... >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF >> + if (np && of_device_is_available(np)) { >> + pd = sh_eth_parse_dt(&pdev->dev, ndev); >> + if (pdev->dev.platform_data) { >> + struct sh_eth_plat_data *tmp = >> + pdev->dev.platform_data; >> + pd->set_mdio_gate = tmp->set_mdio_gate; >> + pd->needs_init = tmp->needs_init; >> + } >> + } else >> +#endif > > sh_eth_parse_dt() was defined for both CO NFIG_OF and !CONFIG_OF. > But it is called only from CONFIG_OF ? > Because of_device_is_available depennds CONFIG_OF. I already send a patch which add empty fuction of of_device_is_available. If this was applied, your point does not need.
OK, I erase empty sh_eth_parse_dt, and if a patch is applied, I will update this. Regards, Nobuhiro -- Nobuhiro Iwamatsu _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
