[PATCH] common: boards: wolfvision: use state_by_alias instead of opencoding

[Ahmad Fatoum]

Hello Michael,

On 15.05.24 08:29, Michael Riesch wrote:
> Hi Ahmad,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your patch!
> 
> On 5/15/24 08:07, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> This introduces no functional change, but makes code a bit more compact.
>>
>> Cc: Michael Riesch <michael.riesch at wolfvision.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum at pengutronix.de>
>> ---
>>  common/boards/wolfvision/common.c | 6 +-----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/boards/wolfvision/common.c b/common/boards/wolfvision/common.c
>> index f483918cecfe..5484a8ac6b06 100644
>> --- a/common/boards/wolfvision/common.c
>> +++ b/common/boards/wolfvision/common.c
>> @@ -62,11 +62,7 @@ int wolfvision_register_ethaddr(void)
>>  	char mac[ETH_ALEN];
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> -	ret = of_device_ensure_probed_by_alias("state");
> 
> Just to be on the safe side: of_device_ensure_probed_by_alias makes sure
> that the underlying drivers are probed, right?

Yes.

> 
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		return ret;
>> -
>> -	state = state_by_name("state");
>> +	state = state_by_alias("state");
> 
> state_by_alias, on the other hand, calls only of_find_node_by_alias,
> which (as I presume) does not ensure that.

Yes, but afterwards it calls state_by_node(), which calls of_device_ensure_probed().

> IIRC the of_device_ensure_... magic was necessary in our setup, but I
> can give your patch a test during the next round of barebox board code
> cleanups.

Yes, I ran into these problems before too on a deep probe system, which is
why state_by_alias was added.

Cheers,
Ahmad

> 
> Best regards,
> Michael
> 
>>  	if (!state)
>>  		return -ENOENT;
>>  
> 

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |