Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756717Ab2JZHMW (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:12:22 -0400 Received: from eu1sys200aog105.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.119]:47273 "EHLO eu1sys200aog105.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756600Ab2JZHMU (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:12:20 -0400 Message-ID: <508A37E6.8000401@st.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:12:38 +0100 From: Srinivas KANDAGATLA Reply-To: srinivas.kandagatla@st.com Organization: STMicroelectronics User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Herring Cc: grant.likely@secretlab.ca, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3.7.0-rc2] dt: match id-table before creating platform device References: <1350988259-22767-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@st.com> <5086988F.6090107@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5086988F.6090107@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4644 Lines: 137 On 23/10/12 14:15, Rob Herring wrote: re-sending my reply again, as it did not appear in my inbox from dt mailing list. > Adding lkml. DT patches should go to both lists. > > On 10/23/2012 05:30 AM, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: >> From: Srinivas Kandagatla >> >> As part of of_platform_populate call, the existing code iterates each >> child node and then creates a platform device for each child, however >> there is bug in the code which does not check the match table before >> creating the platform device. This might result creating two platfrom >> devices and also invoking driver probe twice, which is incorrect. >> >> This patch moves a existing of_match_node check to start of the function >> to fix the bug, doing this way will return immediately without creating >> any datastructures if the child does not match the supplied match-table. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla >> --- >> drivers/of/platform.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c >> index b80891b..1aaa560 100644 >> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c >> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c >> @@ -367,6 +367,9 @@ static int of_platform_bus_create(struct device_node *bus, >> return 0; >> } >> >> + if (!of_match_node(matches, bus)) >> + return 0; >> + > This is not right. This function is recursive and this change would > break that. You are correct, this change might break the functionality. > Perhaps we could only call of_platform_device_create_pdata > if !of_match_node instead, but I'm not completely sure that would be the > right thing to do. I did try to do the same thing in the patch. May be I should have moved check just before calling of_platform_device_create_pdata? > There's also some historical things we have to > support which is why we have of_platform_populate and of_platform_bus_probe. m just trying to understand the difference between of_platform_populate and of_platform_bus_probe. Looking at the function documentation, which states of_platform_bus_probe will only create children of the root which are selected by the @matches argument. of_platform_populate walks the device tree and creates devices from nodes. It differs in that it follows the modern convention of requiring all device nodes to have a 'compatible' property, and it is suitable for creating devices which are children of the root node. Lets say If we call of_platform_populate(NULL, match_table, NULL, NULL) on a device trees like the below with struct of_device_id match_table[] = { { .compatible = "simple-bus", } {} }; parent@0{ compatible = "xxx,parent1", "simple-bus"; ... child@0 { compatible = "xxx,child0", "simple-bus"; ... }; child@1 { compatible = "xxx,child1"; ... }; child@2 { compatible = "xxx,child2", "simple-bus"; ... }; }; of_platform_bus_probe would create platform-devices for parent@0, child@0and child@2 where as of_platform_populate would create platform-devices for parent@0, child@0, child@1 and child@2 nodes. So the question is why do we need to have @matches argument to of_platform_populate in the first place, if it creates all the devices by walking the dt nodes? It is bit confusing, As some platforms use of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL) assuming that only matching nodes will end up having platform device. Also some platforms use of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, match_table, NULL), where match table is of_default_bus_match_table. Am not 100% sure what is the right solution, but I think lot of platforms would want behavior like of_platform_bus_probe which takes lookups aswell. IMO, we could do two things to avoid this confusion in future and achieve the expected behaviour. 1. Remove matches from of_platform_populate 2. add Lookup argument to of_platform_bus_probe ?? --srini > Rob > >> auxdata = of_dev_lookup(lookup, bus); >> if (auxdata) { >> bus_id = auxdata->name; >> @@ -379,7 +382,7 @@ static int of_platform_bus_create(struct device_node *bus, >> } >> >> dev = of_platform_device_create_pdata(bus, bus_id, platform_data, parent); >> - if (!dev || !of_match_node(matches, bus)) >> + if (!dev) >> return 0; >> >> for_each_child_of_node(bus, child) { >> > > -- 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/