On 11/02/2014 18:10, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Jason Cooper,
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:53:14 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
>
>>> - np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, of_system_controller_table);
>>> + np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, of_system_controller_table,
>>> + &match);
>>> if (np) {
>>> - const struct of_device_id *match =
>>> - of_match_node(of_system_controller_table, np);
>>
>>
>>> - BUG_ON(!match);
>>
>> Gregory, is it ok to remove this? It was added with the original code
>> submission for mach-mvebu. mvebu_restart() will handle this
>> gracefully...
>
> The BUG_ON here can normally never be reached. If
> of_find_matching_node() returns a non-NULL result, then of_match_node()
> should also return a non-NULL result.
>
> Or I'm missing something :)
No you're almost right!
The only case we can get it, would be if we were declaring something like:
static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = {
{
.compatible = "foo,bar-controller",
},
[...]
instead of
static struct of_device_id of_system_controller_table[] = {
{
.compatible = "foo,bar",
.data = (void *) &bar_controller,
},
[...]
This test is very paranoid, so I agree to remove it.
Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clem...@free-electrons.com>
Thanks,
Gregory
>
> Thomas
>
--
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
