[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Should regulator core support parsing OF based fwnode?

    On 03/10/2019 22:27, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
    > On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
    >> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
    >>> On 10/3/19 8:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
    >>>>> On 10/3/19 2:47 PM, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
    >>>>>> On 03/10/2019 12:42, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:28:09AM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
    >>>> This mail has nothing relevant in the subject line and pages of quotes
    >>>> before the question for me, it's kind of lucky I noticed it....
    >>> Isn't it all about creating proper filters?
    >> My point there is that there's nothing obvious in the mail that suggests
    >> it should get past filters - just being CCed on a mail isn't super
    >> reliable, people often get pulled in due to things like checkpatch or
    >> someone copying a CC list from an earlier patch series where there were
    >> things were relevant.
    > OK, updated the subject.
    >>>>> I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add support for fwnode
    >>>>> parsing to regulator core. Or maybe it is either somehow supported
    >>>>> or not supported on purpose?
    >>>> Anything attempting to use the regulator DT bindings in ACPI has very
    >>>> serious problems, ACPI has its own power model which isn't compatible
    >>>> with that used in DT.
    >>> We have a means for checking if fwnode refers to of_node:
    >>> is_of_node(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
    >>> Couldn't it be employed for OF case?
    >> Why would we want to do that? We'd continue to support only DT systems,
    >> just with code that's less obviously DT only and would need to put
    >> checks in. I'm not seeing an upside here.
    > For instance few weeks ago we had a patch [0] in the LED core switching
    > from using struct device's of_node property to fwnode for conveying
    > device property data. And this transition to fwnode property API can be
    > observed as a frequent pattern across subsystems.
    > Recently there is an ongoing effort aiming to add generic support for
    > handling regulators in the LED core [1], but it turns out to require
    > bringing back initialization of of_node property for
    > devm_regulator_get_optional() to work properly.
    > Support for OF related fwnodes in regulator core could help reducing
    > this noise.

    We could have this done in dev_of_node():

    static inline struct device_node *dev_of_node(struct device *dev)
        if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) || !dev)
            return NULL;
        return dev->of_node ? dev->of_node : to_of_node(dev->fwnode);

    Then it will only be a matter of using dev_of_node() instead of
    accessing directly dev->of_node

    > [0]
    > [1]

     \ /
      Last update: 2019-10-04 12:13    [W:4.177 / U:3.864 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site