We'll add a dummy to just return false.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644
--- a/include/linux/of.h
+++ b/include/linux/of.h
@@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void)
return false;
}
+static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent,
const char *compatible)
{
--
2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:48 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/of.h
> +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent,
> const char *compatible)
> {
> --
> 2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog
>
On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
fails???
-Frank
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> index 0cf857012f11..62ae5c1cafa5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/of.h
> +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> @@ -653,6 +653,11 @@ static inline bool of_have_populated_dt(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline bool of_node_is_root(const struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static inline struct device_node *of_get_compatible_child(const struct device_node *parent,
> const char *compatible)
> {
>
Hi,
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > We'll add a dummy to just return false.
>
> A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
>
> My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
> fails???
Ah, sorry. Needed for:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com
-Doug
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:59 AM Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > We'll add a dummy to just return false.
> >
> > A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
> >
> > My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
> > fails???
>
> Ah, sorry. Needed for:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com
Should I take both patches via pstore, or should both go via DT tree?
--
Kees Cook
On 5/7/19 10:59 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
>>
>> A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
>>
>> My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
>> fails???
>
> Ah, sorry. Needed for:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com
Got it. I went and looked at that. I think a better approach would be to
check parent node not "/reserved-memory". I am making this suggestion in
that email thread.
-Frank
>
>
>
> -Doug
> .
>
Hi,
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 3:17 PM Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 5/7/19 10:59 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >>> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
> >>
> >> A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
> >>
> >> My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
> >> fails???
> >
> > Ah, sorry. Needed for:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=Vxp-U7mZUNmAAOja5pt-8rZqPryEvwTg_Dv3ChuH_TrA@mail.gmail.com
>
> Got it. I went and looked at that. I think a better approach would be to
> check parent node not "/reserved-memory". I am making this suggestion in
> that email thread.
OK. Assuming that people are happy with that approach [1], we should
consider this patch abandoned. Thanks for your reviews!
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
-Doug