On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 19:53 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> > > It feels like a wrong approach. >> > > Can OF graph help here? Would it be better approach? >> > >> > I don't quite understand what your objection is nor what "OF graph" >> > is... >> >> There is no objection per se, just a doubt that this is a right thing to do. >> I might be wrong, of course. >> >> OF graph nodes is a special API that allows you to access like you >> said "different node of device-tree". >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt > > So I had a look and this is just an example on how to use phandles to > link ports and endpoints... I fail to see how that relates to what this > patch does. Because your patch does nothing except another layring of the existing APIs. > In the driver I'm doing for example, I do use a similar technique to > "point" to the other node. In this case, this is a coprocessor in the > SoC and I'm linking to the node that represent its interrupt controller > (and its not a full fledged OS running there so we don't have a full > interrupt tree for it). Hmm... So, you are trying to solve problem with other methods which might be not so suitable at all? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
