| Message ID | 1370860014-1770-7-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
hello. On 10-06-2013 14:26, Josh Wu wrote: > If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not partition. > Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c [...] > @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > /* First count the subnodes */ > pp = NULL; > nr_parts = 0; > - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) > + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { Assignment in *while*? Is scripts/checkpatch.pl happy about that? > + int len; Empty line wouldn't hurt here, after declaration. > + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) > + continue; > + > nr_parts++; > + } > > if (nr_parts == 0) > return 0; WBR, Sergei
Hi Josh, On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> wrote: > If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not partition. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/mtd/partitions.h> > > +static bool node_has_compatible(struct device_node *pp, int *len) > +{ > + return of_get_property(pp, "compatible", len); > +} The way the interface is named, it seems like a user only would ever need the bool return value, not the implicit 'len' return value. So I would write it like this: static bool node_has_compatible(struct device_node *pp) { return of_get_property(pp, "compatible", NULL); } > static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > struct mtd_partition **pparts, > struct mtd_part_parser_data *data) > @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > /* First count the subnodes */ > pp = NULL; > nr_parts = 0; > - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) > + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { > + int len; > + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) Then this would just be: if (node_has_compatible(pp)) ... etc. (rest snipped) On a more important question, why does a NAND device node have sub-nodes that are not partitions? And if such devices exist, wouldn't it be more foolproof to establish a "compatible" property for ofpart partitions? Of course, we'd still have to retain backward-compatibility and allow partitions without a "compatible" prop. But this question probably should be addressed in the commit log and documented in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partition.txt ; either specifying that all sub-nodes without a compatible property must be partitions, or else some other explanation. Brian
Hi, Brian On 6/12/2013 7:34 AM, Brian Norris wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> wrote: >> If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not partition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> #include <linux/mtd/partitions.h> >> >> +static bool node_has_compatible(struct device_node *pp, int *len) >> +{ >> + return of_get_property(pp, "compatible", len); >> +} > The way the interface is named, it seems like a user only would ever > need the bool return value, not the implicit 'len' return value. So I > would write it like this: > > static bool node_has_compatible(struct device_node *pp) > { > return of_get_property(pp, "compatible", NULL); > } yes, this is exactly is what I want. I didn't check the *len can be NULL or not. thanks. > >> static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, >> struct mtd_partition **pparts, >> struct mtd_part_parser_data *data) >> @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, >> /* First count the subnodes */ >> pp = NULL; >> nr_parts = 0; >> - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) >> + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { >> + int len; >> + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) > Then this would just be: > > if (node_has_compatible(pp)) > ... > etc. (rest snipped) > > On a more important question, why does a NAND device node have > sub-nodes that are not partitions? And if such devices exist, wouldn't > it be more foolproof to establish a "compatible" property for ofpart > partitions? In my case, we have a Atmel NAND flash driver/device which is work for all series of SAM9/SAMA5D3 chip. And since in the new chip SAMA5D3 which has a NAND Flash Controller support. So to enable NAND flash controller, I should either write a compatible driver like atmel,sama5-nand, which is just old device property plus NFC regs and NFC properties, that became too big. Or add a NFC sub-node for the NFC support. IMHO, to make the NFC device as a sub-node is the simplest way to make nand driver is back-compatible and easy to enable/disable NFC feature. Since all NFC related property are grouped it is more readable. But to implement this, I need to add this patch, otherwise this NFC sub node will be recognized as a partition. > Of course, we'd still have to retain > backward-compatibility and allow partitions without a "compatible" > prop. But this question probably should be addressed in the commit log > and documented in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partition.txt > ; either specifying that all sub-nodes without a compatible property > must be partitions, or else some other explanation. yes, sure. I will add an explanation in commit log and Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partition.txt in next version. > > Brian Best Regards, Josh Wu
Hi, Sergei On 6/10/2013 8:35 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > hello. > > On 10-06-2013 14:26, Josh Wu wrote: > >> If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not >> partition. > >> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c > [...] >> @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info >> *master, >> /* First count the subnodes */ >> pp = NULL; >> nr_parts = 0; >> - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) >> + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { > > Assignment in *while*? Is scripts/checkpatch.pl happy about that? yes, checkpatch.pl has no complain ;-) > >> + int len; > > Empty line wouldn't hurt here, after declaration. Ok, as Brian said, I will no need to use a 'int len' here. So I will remove those declaration. > >> + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) >> + continue; >> + >> nr_parts++; >> + } >> >> if (nr_parts == 0) >> return 0; > > WBR, Sergei > Thanks. Best Regards, Josh Wu
Hello. On 13-06-2013 7:42, Josh Wu wrote: >>> If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not >>> partition. >>> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >>> index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c >> [...] >>> @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info >>> *master, >>> /* First count the subnodes */ >>> pp = NULL; >>> nr_parts = 0; >>> - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) >>> + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { >> Assignment in *while*? Is scripts/checkpatch.pl happy about that? > yes, checkpatch.pl has no complain ;-) It seems checkpatch.pl only complains about *if*. Not very consistent... WBR, Sergei
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c index 553d6d6..61ce1f8 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/ofpart.c @@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/mtd/partitions.h> +static bool node_has_compatible(struct device_node *pp, int *len) +{ + return of_get_property(pp, "compatible", len); +} static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, struct mtd_partition **pparts, struct mtd_part_parser_data *data) @@ -40,8 +44,13 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, /* First count the subnodes */ pp = NULL; nr_parts = 0; - while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) + while ((pp = of_get_next_child(node, pp))) { + int len; + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) + continue; + nr_parts++; + } if (nr_parts == 0) return 0; @@ -57,6 +66,9 @@ static int parse_ofpart_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, int len; int a_cells, s_cells; + if (node_has_compatible(pp, &len)) + continue; + reg = of_get_property(pp, "reg", &len); if (!reg) { nr_parts--;
If the child node has compatible property then it is a driver not partition. Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> --- drivers/mtd/ofpart.c | 14 +++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)