On 8/16/22 5:03 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 16/08/2022 13:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 15/08/2022 07:34, Samuel Holland wrote:

quoted

Now that a "regulators" child is accepted by the controller binding, the
debugfs show routine must be explicitly limited to "sram" children.

Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
---

(no changes since v2)

Changes in v2:
 - New patch for v2

 drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c b/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c
index 92f9186c1c42..6acaaeb65652 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c

@@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ static int sunxi_sram_show(struct seq_file *s, void *data)
 	seq_puts(s, "--------------------\n\n");
 
 	for_each_child_of_node(sram_dev->of_node, sram_node) {
+		if (!of_node_name_eq(sram_node, "sram"))

You should not rely on node names. They can change in DTS. Why do you
need to test for the name?

Ah, it is not a device node but a child property, right? In such case,
it's of course fine.

It is a child node.

The device node names could change and should not be considered ABI (at
least I hope should not...).

The node names are limited by patternProperties in the controller binding. I can
check the child nodes for compatibility with "mmio-sram" if that is better.

Regards,
Samuel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel