On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:14 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Saravana, > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:00 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 8:19 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:11 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:11 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The OF_POPULATED flag was set to let fw_devlink know that the device > > > > > > tree node will not have a struct device created for it. This information > > > > > > is used by fw_devlink to avoid deferring the probe of consumers of this > > > > > > device tree node. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's use fwnode_dev_initialized() instead because it achieves the same > > > > > > effect without using OF specific flags. This allows more generic code to > > > > > > be written in driver core. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/rcar-sysc.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/rcar-sysc.c > > > > > > @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static int __init rcar_sysc_pd_init(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > error = of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(np, &domains->onecell_data); > > > > > > if (!error) > > > > > > - of_node_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED); > > > > > > + fwnode_dev_initialized(&np->fwnode, true); > > > > > > > > > > As drivers/soc/renesas/rmobile-sysc.c is already using this method, > > > > > it should work fine. > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > i.e. will queue in renesas-devel for v6.4. > > > > I hope you meant queue it up for 6.3 and not 6.4? > > V6.4. > The deadline for submitting pull requests for the soc tree is rc6. > Sorry, your series was posted too late to make that. > > > > > Thanks! Does that mean I should drop this from this series? If two > > > > maintainers pick the same patch up, will it cause problems? I'm > > > > eventually expecting this series to be picked up by Greg into > > > > driver-core-next. > > > > > > Indeed. Patches for drivers/soc/renesas/ are supposed to go upstream > > > through the renesas-devel and soc trees. This patch has no dependencies > > > on anything else in the series (or vice versa), so there is no reason > > > to deviate from that, and possibly cause conflicts later. > > > > This series is supposed to fix a bunch of issues and I vaguely think > > the series depends on this patch to work correctly on some Renesas > > systems. You are my main renesas person, so it's probably some issue > > you hit. Is you pick it up outside of this series I need to keep > > asking folks to pick up two different patch threads. I don't have a > > strong opinion, just a FYI. If you can take this patch soon, I don't > > have any concerns. > > Oh right, you do remove OF_POPULATED handling in > "[PATCH v2 09/11] of: property: Simplify of_link_to_phandle()". > It might be wise to postpone that removal, as after your series, > there are stillseveral users left, some of them might be impacted. > > I do plan to test your full series on all my boards, but probably that > won't happen this week. > > > > BTW, I will convert to of_node_to_fwnode() while applying. > > > > Sounds good. > > If you still want this to land in v6,3 (with the of_node_to_fwnode() > conversion): > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > Yeah, let me try to land this in 6.3 with the series. -Saravana
