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