Hi Andy, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:55:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:39:47PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 08:17:46PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > The patch series by Petr I mentioned takes care about OF case. But it doesn't > > > have covered yours by obvious reasons. > > > > Do you happen to have a pointer to it? > > Petr, can you share what is the state of affairs with that series? > > > The behaviour on others is different indeed, you're generally printing a > > single item at a time. The question rather is, whether we want to be > > compatible with %pOF going forward or not. I'd prefer that, so using the > > fwnode API would be easier. > > I would prefer to mimic %pOF and actually to deprecate it in favour of %pfw. > But it's just mine opinion. I'm skeptical about getting support on it. IMHO code that only deals with OF specifically is better to continue to use %pOF. You'd have of_fwnode_handle() in places where you just had the name of the node previously. What could be done though is to unify the implementations; that's something which the set does a little of already. Cc Rob, too. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
