Hello Pantelis, On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote: >>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c >>> @@ -1641,6 +1641,7 @@ int of_attach_node(struct device_node *np) >>> np->allnext = of_allnodes; >>> np->parent->child = np; >>> of_allnodes = np; >>> + of_node_clear_flag(np, OF_DETACHED); >>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devtree_lock, flags); >>> >>> of_add_proc_dt_entry(np); >> >> Does this add a call to a routine which only gets introduced in a >> subsequent patch (2/5)? If so, it would break builds during the >> series, and thus would hinder bisection. >> > > You're right, I'll re-order on the next series.
Is it necessary at all now, after these fixes: 9e401275 of: fdt: fix memory initialization for expanded DT 0640332e of: Fix missing memory initialization on FDT unflattening 92d31610 of/fdt: Remove duplicate memory clearing on FDT unflattening ? -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
