On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:33PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 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>
Ok, great! Josh, do you want us to take the two mvebu patches through
mvebu/arm-soc? Or would you prefer to take them?
thx,
Jason.
--
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
