On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 8/17/19 1:29 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 16/08/2019 00:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Add a new parameter to device_tree_for_each_node: node, the node to
> > > > start the s
Hi,
On 8/17/19 1:29 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 16/08/2019 00:36, 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.
Here you say 0 trigge
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/08/2019 00:36, 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.
>
> Here you say 0 triggers the old behavior but...
>
> >
> >
Hi,
On 16/08/2019 00:36, 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.
Here you say 0 triggers the old behavior but...
Set min_depth to depth of the current node + 1 to avoid scanning
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 to avoid scanning
siblings of the initial node passed as an argument.
Don't call func() on the parent node passed as an ar