[PATCH 1/3] of: Add of_match_machine helper
From: Thierry Reding <hidden>
Date: 2014-08-08 09:41:33
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-pm, linux-tegra, lkml
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:01:53AM +0300, Tuomas Tynkkynen wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add of_match_machine function to test the device tree root for an of_match array. This can be useful when testing SoC versions at runtime, for example. Signed-off-by: Tuomas Tynkkynen <redacted> --- drivers/of/base.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/of.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c index d8574ad..37798ea 100644 --- a/drivers/of/base.c +++ b/drivers/of/base.c@@ -977,6 +977,27 @@ struct device_node *of_find_matching_node_and_match(struct device_node *from, EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_find_matching_node_and_match); /** + * of_match_machine - Tell if root of device tree has a matching of_match struct + * @matches: array of of device match structures to search in + * + * Returns the result of of_match_node for the root node. + */
I was going to say that this kerneldoc is weirdly formatted, but when I looked at the other kerneldoc comments in this file it seems that they use similarly weird formatting...
+const struct of_device_id *of_match_machine(const struct of_device_id *matches)
+{
+ const struct of_device_id *match;
+ struct device_node *root;
+
+ root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
+ if (!root)
+ return NULL;
+
+ match = of_match_node(matches, root);
+ of_node_put(root);
+ return match;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_match_machine);
I wonder if of_find_node_by_path("/") is somewhat overkill here. Perhaps
simply of_node_get(of_allnodes) would be more appropriate here since the
function is implemented in the core?
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140808/67e6af16/attachment.sig>