On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:49:44 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
>
> > 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/d
Hi!
On 06/11/13 09:49, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
> Since at that point the tree is attached.
Yes, now I think it's necessary. If you consider multiple detach-attach
sequences.
I only thought about first fdt unflattering, which is the cas
Hi Alexander,
I'm not exactly sure, but I think it is still needed.
Since at that point the tree is attached.
Grant?
Regards
-- Pantelis
On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> Hello Pantelis,
>
> On 05/11/13 21:03, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM,
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->ch
Hi Gerhard,
On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 19:50 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou 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
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 19:50 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou 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_
6 matches
Mail list logo