> On 10-Aug-2023, at 3:21 AM, Reza Arbab <ar...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Athira,
>
> I still have a couple of the same questions I asked in v4.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 08:54:29AM +0530, Athira Rajeev wrote:
>> Add a function dt_find_by_name_before_addr() that returns the child node if
>> it matches till first occurrence at "@" of a given name, otherwise NULL.
>
> Given this summary, I don't userstand the following:
>
>> + assert(dt_find_by_name(root, "node@1") == addr1);
>> + assert(dt_find_by_name(root, "node0_1@2") == addr2);
>
> Is this behavior required? I don't think it makes sense to call this function
> with a second argument containing '@', so I wouldn't expect it to match
> anything in these cases. The function seems to specifically enable it:
Hi Reza,
Yes makes sense. dt_find_by_name can be removed in this test since its
intention is to find device by name.
I will remove these two checks.
>
>> +struct dt_node *dt_find_by_name_before_addr(struct dt_node *root, const
>> char *name)
>> +{
> [snip]
>> + node = strdup(name);
>> + if (!node)
>> + return NULL;
>> + node = strtok(node, "@");
>
> Seems like you could get rid of this and just use name as-is.
Ok Reza
>
> I was curious about something else; say we have 'node@1' and 'node@2'. Is
> there an expectation of which it should match?
>
> addr1 = dt_new_addr(root, "node", 0x1);
> addr2 = dt_new_addr(root, "node", 0x2);
> assert(dt_find_by_name_substr(root, "node") == ???????);
> ^^^^^^^
In this case, dt_find_by_name_before_addr is not the right function to use.
We have other functions like dt_find_by_name_addr that can be made use of.
I will address other changes in next version
Thanks
Athira
>
> --
> Reza Arbab
