Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755293Ab0BIRZy (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:25:54 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:58334 "EHLO mail-iw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754837Ab0BIRZx (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:25:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100205205043.GB4178@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20100205204949.GA2575@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100205205043.GB4178@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> From: Grant Likely Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:25:22 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ef7a8ae5262124e7 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] of: Introduce safe accessors for node->data To: Anton Vorontsov Cc: David Brownell , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , Michal Simek , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 821 Lines: 21 On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Platform code use node->data to store some private information > associated with a node. > > Previously there was no need for any locks and accessors since we were > initializing the data mostly at boot time and never modified it later. > > Though, nowadays OF GPIO infrastructure supports GPIO chips detaching, > so to handle this correctly we have to introduce locking for the > node->data field. I'm not convinced this is needed. What's wrong with using the whole-tree devtree_lock? g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/