On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:34 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:03 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:29 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:50:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > GPIO library now accepts fwnode as a firmware node, so > > > > switch the module to use it. ... > > > > - devptr->chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node; > > > > + devptr->chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev); > > > > > > Perhaps I want the DT test code to test using the of_node pointer. We do > > > want that to work, right? > > > > Nope. We want to get rid of of_node in GPIO. > > I would think there's old PPC users preventing that, but if not, good job. Recently applied by respective maintainer, so no more PPC GPIO using OF node. > > > I'm really not a fan of fwnode'ifying things that are DT only. It's > > > really pointless churn. > > > > Other way around, keeping an of_node for just 3 drivers (and counting > > down) + one test case is pointless churn. > > > > But I got that commit message that is unclear about the intentions > > behind. I will update that if you agree on the rest. > > If it is going away, then what choice do I have. :) Yep, that is the idea. I interpret this as "go ahead with a better commit message and I will Ack it"! Thanks, Rob, for your review! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
