Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2023 15:39:19 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <rafal@milecki.pl>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@sartura.hr>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>,
        Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/7] nvmem: Clarify the situation when there is no
 DT node available
Message-ID: <20231008153919.5b8e2562@xps-13>
In-Reply-To: <2e3ea6a4e63e0c6bebf4c18b165250e5@milecki.pl>
References: <20231005155907.2701706-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
        <20231005155907.2701706-3-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
        <05cd4592d0cfe0fb86aeb24db01de547@milecki.pl>
        <20231006183229.51cd8e60@xps-13>
        <2e3ea6a4e63e0c6bebf4c18b165250e5@milecki.pl>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Rafa=C5=82,

rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:09:06 +0200:

> One comment below
>=20
> On 2023-10-06 18:32, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Fri, 06 Oct 2023 13:41:52 +0200:
> >  =20
> >> On 2023-10-05 17:59, Miquel Raynal wrote: =20
> >> > At a first look it might seem that the presence of the of_node point=
er
> >> > in the nvmem device does not matter much, but in practice, after > l=
ooking
> >> > deep into the DT core, nvmem_add_cells_from_dt() will simply and alw=
ays
> >> > return NULL if this field is not provided. As most mtd devices don't
> >> > populate this field (this could evolve later), it means none of their
> >> > children cells will be populated unless no_of_node is explicitly set=
 to
> >> > false. In order to clarify the logic, let's add clear check at the
> >> > beginning of this helper. =20
> >> >> I'm somehow confused by above explanation and code too. I read it =
=20
> >> carefully 5 times but I can't see what exactly this change helps with.=
 =20
> >> >> At first look at nvmem_add_cells_from_legacy_of() I can see it uses=
 =20
> >> "of_node" so I don't really agree with "it might seem that the >> pres=
ence
> >> of the of_node pointer in the nvmem device does not matter much". =20
> >> >> You really don't need to look deep into DT core (actually you don't=
 >> have =20
> >> to look into it at all) to understand that nvmem_add_cells_from_dt()
> >> will return 0 (nitpicking: not NULL) for a NULL pointer. It's all made
> >> of for_each_child_of_node(). Obviously it does nothing if there is
> >> nothing to loop over. =20
> >=20
> > That was not obvious to me as I thought it would start from /, which I
> > think some other function do when you don't provide a start node. =20
>=20
> What about documenting that function instead of adding redundant code?

Yeah would work as well. But I will just get rid of this, with your
other patch that solves the fact that of_node will be there with mtd
devices, it's no longer relevant.

Thanks,
Miqu=C3=A8l