In-Reply-To: [off-list ref]
On Wed Jul 18 11:33:08 EST 2007, Scott Wood wrote:
1. ft_create_node was returning the internal pointer rather than a
phandle.
2. ft_find_device_rel was treating lookups relative to root as an
error.
No, it is treating lookups relative to NULL as an error.
Your patch changes it to treat lookups relative to the NULL phandle as
relative to root.
I've no objections to the other part, can you split these?
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
---
arch/powerpc/boot/flatdevtree.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/flatdevtree.c
b/arch/powerpc/boot/flatdevtree.c
index b732644..5b69aeb 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/flatdevtree.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/flatdevtree.c
@@ -659,9 +659,13 @@ void *ft_find_device_rel(struct ft_cxt *cxt,
const void *top,
{
char *node;
- node = ft_node_ph2node(cxt, top);
- if (node == NULL)
- return NULL;
+ if (top) {
+ node = ft_node_ph2node(cxt, top);
+ if (node == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+ } else {
+ node = ft_root_node(cxt);
+ }
milton
Milton Miller wrote:
In-Reply-To: [off-list ref]
On Wed Jul 18 11:33:08 EST 2007, Scott Wood wrote:
quoted
1. ft_create_node was returning the internal pointer rather than a
phandle.
2. ft_find_device_rel was treating lookups relative to root as an error.
No, it is treating lookups relative to NULL as an error.
Your patch changes it to treat lookups relative to the NULL phandle as
relative to root.
Other parts of the code (such as ft_create_node) already do that.
What's wrong with it?
I've no objections to the other part, can you split these?
No, because change #1 won't work without change #2.
-Scott
On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Milton Miller wrote:
quoted
In-Reply-To: [off-list ref]
On Wed Jul 18 11:33:08 EST 2007, Scott Wood wrote:
quoted
1. ft_create_node was returning the internal pointer rather than a
phandle.
2. ft_find_device_rel was treating lookups relative to root as an
error.
No, it is treating lookups relative to NULL as an error.
Your patch changes it to treat lookups relative to the NULL phandle
as relative to root.
Other parts of the code (such as ft_create_node) already do that.
What's wrong with it?
Well, that behavior may be ok, but the change log should say that is
the behavior you are changing.
Ie I would record 2 as:
When ft_find_device_rel is asked to find relative to NULL, find
realative to root instead of returning an error.
or:
ft_find_device_rel now treats lookups relative to NULL as relative to
the root instead of erroring out.
My reading would say that lookups relative to the phandle of root would
have workied before, no?
quoted
I've no objections to the other part, can you split these?
No, because change #1 won't work without change #2.
Huh?
I can see how changing a routine to return an external not internal
pointer is necessary before changing a caller creates a dependancy for
2 on 1, but why does it require lookups relative to the phandle NULL be
treated as lookups relative to the root?
milton