| Message ID | 1447242463-2881-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
It looks like no comment (no interest?) on this patch. If nobody is opposed to this patch, I will put it into Russell's patch tracker. 2015-11-11 20:47 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>: > The function uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node() does the same thing > as of_find_next_cache_node(). Drop the former and stick to the common > API. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > --- > > arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c | 13 +------------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > index 0502ba1..a6fa7b7 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c > @@ -377,17 +377,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id uniphier_cache_match[] __initconst = { > { /* sentinel */ } > }; > > -static struct device_node * __init uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node( > - struct device_node *np) > -{ > - u32 phandle; > - > - if (of_property_read_u32(np, "next-level-cache", &phandle)) > - return NULL; > - > - return of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle); > -} > - > static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct device_node *np, > unsigned int *cache_level) > { > @@ -491,7 +480,7 @@ static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct device_node *np, > * next level cache fails because we want to continue with available > * cache levels. > */ > - next_np = uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node(np); > + next_np = of_find_next_cache_node(np); > if (next_np) { > (*cache_level)++; > ret = __uniphier_cache_init(next_np, cache_level); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c index 0502ba1..a6fa7b7 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c @@ -377,17 +377,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id uniphier_cache_match[] __initconst = { { /* sentinel */ } }; -static struct device_node * __init uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node( - struct device_node *np) -{ - u32 phandle; - - if (of_property_read_u32(np, "next-level-cache", &phandle)) - return NULL; - - return of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle); -} - static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct device_node *np, unsigned int *cache_level) { @@ -491,7 +480,7 @@ static int __init __uniphier_cache_init(struct device_node *np, * next level cache fails because we want to continue with available * cache levels. */ - next_np = uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node(np); + next_np = of_find_next_cache_node(np); if (next_np) { (*cache_level)++; ret = __uniphier_cache_init(next_np, cache_level);
The function uniphier_cache_get_next_level_node() does the same thing as of_find_next_cache_node(). Drop the former and stick to the common API. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> --- arch/arm/mm/cache-uniphier.c | 13 +------------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)