Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> @@ -322,12 +322,16 @@ static int pseries_remove_mem_node(struct device_node >> *np) >> /* >> * Find the base address and size of the memblock >> */ >> - regs = of_get_property(np, "reg", NULL); >> - if (!regs) >> + prop = of_get_property(np, "reg", NULL); >> + if (!prop) >> return ret; >> >> - base = be64_to_cpu(*(unsigned long *)regs); >> - lmb_size = be32_to_cpu(regs[3]); >> + /* >> + * "reg" property represents (addr,size) tuple. >> + */ >> + base = of_read_number(prop, mem_addr_cells); >> + prop += mem_addr_cells; >> + lmb_size = of_read_number(prop, mem_size_cells); > > Would of_n_size_cells() and of_n_addr_cells() work here?
Yes that should work and be cleaner. cheers
