On Wednesday 23 November 2016 05:37 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> So, the if(!of_node_get()) is just an expensive NULL pointer check. I
>> think
>> it is better to be explicit about it by not using of_node_get/put() at
>> all.
>> How about:
>>
>
> Are we planning to use this in any time sensitive pat
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 03:35 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 23/11/16 07:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 09:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Hi Sekhar,
>>>
>>> On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 09:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> Hi Sudeep,
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
Add a function allowing to retrieve the comp
On 23/11/16 12:13, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 05:37 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> So, the if(!of_node_get()) is just an expensive NULL pointer check. I
>>> think
>>> it is better to be explicit about it by not using of_node_get/put() at
>>> all.
>>> How about:
>>>
>>
>> Are
On 23/11/16 11:47, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 03:35 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/11/16 07:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 09:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Sekhar,
On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
>
On 23/11/16 07:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 09:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Sekhar,
>>
>> On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> Hi Sudeep,
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
>> node of the device tree.
>>
>
> Rob has queued [1] and it's in -next today. You can reuse that if
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:36 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 22/11/16 10:57, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> 2016-11-22 11:53 GMT+01:00 Sudeep Holla :
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
Hi Sekhar,
On 22/11/16 15:06, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 04:23 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
>>> node of the device tree.
>>>
>>
>> Rob ha
2016-11-22 11:57 GMT+01:00 Bartosz Golaszewski :
> 2016-11-22 11:53 GMT+01:00 Sudeep Holla :
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>
>>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
>>> node of the device tree.
>>>
>>
>> Rob has queued [1] and it's in -ne
2016-11-22 11:53 GMT+01:00 Sudeep Holla :
>
>
> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
>> node of the device tree.
>>
>
> Rob has queued [1] and it's in -next today. You can reuse that if you
> are planning to target
Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
node of the device tree.
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski
---
drivers/of/base.c | 22 ++
include/linux/of.h | 6 ++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/bas
On 22/11/16 10:57, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2016-11-22 11:53 GMT+01:00 Sudeep Holla :
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>
>>> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
>>> node of the device tree.
>>>
>>
>> Rob has queued [1] and it's in -nex
On 22/11/16 10:41, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> Add a function allowing to retrieve the compatible string of the root
> node of the device tree.
>
Rob has queued [1] and it's in -next today. You can reuse that if you
are planning to target this for v4.11 or just use open coding in your
driver fo
14 matches
Mail list logo
