Hi Mika,
Thank you for the review.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:52:00PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:03:51PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > const struct fwnode_operations acpi_fwnode_ops = {
> > .property_present = acpi_fwnode_property_present,
> > .property_read_int_array = acpi_fwnode_property_read_int_array,
> > @@ -1193,4 +1248,9 @@ const struct fwnode_operations acpi_fwnode_ops = {
> > .get_parent = acpi_fwnode_get_parent,
> > .get_next_child_node = acpi_get_next_subnode,
> > .get_named_child_node = acpi_fwnode_get_named_child_node,
> > + .graph_get_next_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint,
> > + .graph_get_remote_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint,
> > + .graph_get_remote_port = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_port,
> > + .graph_get_remote_port_parent = acpi_fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent,
> > + .graph_parse_endpoint = acpi_fwnode_graph_parse_endpoint,
> > };
>
> Not sure if it is possible but it would be nice to have a single
> primitive implementation specific graph callback and then build
> everything else on top of that in generic code. Here you have 5
> callbacks just for graph support.
Getting the parent of the port in OF graph is OF specific, the port parent
is not necessarily a direct parent node of the port (in presence of the
"ports" node that contains all port nodes).
I could potentially remove graph_get_remote_port() and use
graph_get_remote_endpoint() and graph_get_parent() instead. I didn't
originally do that as I thought it could be better ot leave it up to the
implementation.
What do you think?
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
