[U-Boot-Users] fdt_find_compatible_node() and friends
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at smiths-aerospace.com
Thu May 3 17:14:31 CEST 2007
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> before re-coding fdt_find_compatible_node(), some more comments.
>
> After browsing more carefully the FDT related code of "arch/powerpc"
> I think we also need, apart from fdt_find_compatible_node() and
> fdt_path_offset(), fdt_find_node_by_type() and maybe
> fdt_find_node_by_name(). These functions do a sequential scan of all
> devices starting at the beginning or after a specified node. They
> actually ignore the hierarchy. Do you agree?
> BTW: any reason why not using the more compatible name
> fdt_find_node_by_path() for fdt_path_offset()?
>
> Wolfgang.
Hi WolfganG,
I'm not an expert, I just fake it on email ;-). With that disclaimer, I
would agree with you WRT all the "find" functions. The original libfdt
code does not support any "find" functions, so we will need to add them.
WRT to fdt_find_node_by_path() vs. fdt_path_offset(), I vaguely recall
some renames happening in the kernel source, but I cannot find them so
my memory likely is faulty[1]. I would be strongly in favor of
following the kernel's lead and renaming that function since we are
already divergent from the original libfdt. The kernel's name is a much
better description.
Best regards,
gvb
[1] My mind is like a steel trap... unfortunately its been soaking it in
beer for years now.
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list