Hi Clément, On Mi, 2022-03-23 at 10:50 +0100, Clément Léger wrote: > This series is part of a larger series which aims at adding fwnode > support in multiple subsystems [1]. The goal of this series was to > add support for software node in various subsystem but in a first > time only the fwnode support had gained consensus and will be added > to multiple subsystems. Could you explain the purpose of this a little? From the referenced mail it looks like this would be intended allow to register reset controllers via software node? Are there any real systems where this would be useful? > For the moment ACPI node support is excluded from the fwnode support > to avoid creating an unspecified ACPI reset device description. Are there any plans or ongoing discussions to specify such a description in the future? Right now I'm only aware of the ACPI _RST method as used by this patch: [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220307135626.16673-1-kyarlagadda@xxxxxxxxxx/ > One question raised by this series is that I'm not sure if all reset > drivers should be modified to use the new fwnode support or keep the > existing device-tree support. Maintainer advice on that particular > question will be welcome. I would prefer not to have to switch all those small DT-only reset controller drivers all over the tree from of_node to fwnode. On the other hand, I think it would be good to avoid the direct of_node assignment, possibly by letting devm_reset_controller_register() initialize of_node or fwnode from the device for most cases, and by adding of_reset_controller_register() and fwnode_reset_controller_register() variants that take the node as an argument for the rest. That could allow to eventually get rid of the of_node pointer. For those drivers that provide their own .of_xlate, I'm not sure it would make sense to force them to use .fwnode_xlate if they don't already have a reason to use fwnode on their own. regards Philipp
