lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Question] refcount of DT node
From
Date
Hi Mark,

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 12:59 , Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:48:49AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 04:47:57PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> Hi experts.
>>>
>>> My understanding of refcount of DT node is poor.
>>
>> The message from DT people is... don't worry about DT node refcounting.
>> Do whatever you want with it, they don't care whether you have correct
>> refcounting or not.
>>
>> The background behind that is that I've tried to fix the refcounting,
>> and even had the coccinelle people generate some stuff to work on this
>> issue, but DT people's attitude towards it is "don't bother".
>>
>> So yes, people may get it wrong, but it seems it's something that DT
>> people want ignored.
>
> I'm not sure that's quite fair; the last discussion I recall about this
> ended up concluding that we need a better API, rather than papering over
> problems.
>
> That said, there isn't much obvious progress on that front.
>
> Frank, Pantelis, Rob, were there any conclusions on this from ELC, or is
> this something that needs someone to propose something?
>

Frank mentioned that he wants a new API. I have some ideas about it too.

My take is that drivers should never do reference counting, we have to figure
out a way for DT access using copy semantics or locks.

References would still be required for core DT code, but that’s a sane subset.

> Mark.
>
> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/153777

Regards

— Pantelis

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-14 12:21    [W:0.095 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site