Hi Rob, > On May 10, 2016, at 00:11 , Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> > wrote: >> Hi Pantelis, >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Pantelis Antoniou >> <pantelis.anton...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c >> >>> @@ -1073,9 +1097,14 @@ struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle >>> handle) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&devtree_lock, flags); >>> - for_each_of_allnodes(np) >>> - if (np->phandle == handle) >>> - break; >>> + /* when we're ready use the hash table */ >>> + if (of_phandle_ht_available() && !in_interrupt()) >> >> I guess the !in_interrupt() test is because of the locking inside >> rhashtable_lookup_fast()? > > Not a use we should support. Just warn for anyone parsing DT in > interrupt context. >
That’s not about users calling in interrupt context. It’s when we’re very early in the boot sequence we’re under interrupt context and calls to the hash methods cannot be made. > Rob Regards — Pantelis
