On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Stefano Stabellini writes:
>
> > Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
> > start the search from. Passing 0 triggers the old behavior.
> >
> > Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 and replace t
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/12/19 11:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
> > start the search from. Passing 0 triggers the old behavior.
> >
> > Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 and repl
Hi,
On 8/12/19 11:28 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
start the search from. Passing 0 triggers the old behavior.
Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 and replace the for
loop with a do/while loop to avoid scanning sibli
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Stabellini writes:
> Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
> start the search from. Passing 0 triggers the old behavior.
>
> Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 and replace the for
> loop with a do/while loop to avoid scanning siblings
Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
start the search from. Passing 0 triggers the old behavior.
Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 and replace the for
loop with a do/while loop to avoid scanning siblings of the initial node
passed as an argument.
We nee
