It looks like no comment (no interest?) on this patch. If nobody is opposed to this patch, I will put it into Russell's patch tracker.
2015-11-11 20:47 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>: > The function uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node() does the same thing > as of_find_next_cache_node(). Drop the former and stick to the common > API. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> > --- > > arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c | 13 +------------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > index 0502ba1..a6fa7b7 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > @@ -377,17 +377,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id uniphier_cache_match[] > __initconst = { > { /* sentinel */ } > }; > > -static struct device_node * __init uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node( > - struct device_node > *np) > -{ > - u32 phandle; > - > - if (of_property_read_u32(np, "next-level-cache", &phandle)) > - return NULL; > - > - return of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle); > -} > - > static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct device_node *np, > unsigned int *cache_level) > { > @@ -491,7 +480,7 @@ static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct > device_node *np, > * next level cache fails because we want to continue with available > * cache levels. > */ > - next_np = uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node(np); > + next_np = of_find_next_cache_node(np); > if (next_np) { > (*cache_level)++; > ret = __uniphier_cache_init(next_np, cache_level); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
