On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:01:49AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 26/02/2025 16:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 04:04:02PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > On 25/02/2025 15:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 03:29:17PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > On 25/02/2025 12:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:29:31PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > On 25/02/2025 12:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 11:40:16AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not check how many users are you proposing for this, but if > > > > > > > > > there's only one, then IMO this should not be a global function yet. > > > > > > > > > It just feels to special case to me. But let's see what the others > > > > > > > > > think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that if somebody hides it, we might potentially see > > > > > > > > a duplication in the future. So I _slightly_ prefer to publish and > > > > > > > > then drop that after a few cycles if no users appear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After taking a very quick grep I spotted one other existing place where we > > > > > > > might be able to do direct conversion to use this function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That'd be 2 users. > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't checked myself, I believe your judgement, > > > > > > > > > > I took a better look and you obviously shouldn't believe :) The gianfar used > > > > > of_node instead of the fwnode. So, it'd be a single caller at starters. > > > > > > > > ...which is the same as dev_of_node(), which means that you can use your > > > > function there. > > > > > > I'm unsure what you mean. The proposed function > > > device_get_child_node_count_named() takes device pointer. I don't see how > > > dev_of_node() helps converting node to device? > > > > dev_of_node() takes the device pointer and dev_fwnode() takes that as well, > > it means that there is no difference which one to use OF-centric or fwnode > > The proposed device_get_child_node_count_named() takes a device pointer. I > don't see how dev_of_node() helps if there is just of_node and no device > pointer available in the calling code. ??? The loops are working on struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.np; which is the equivalent to struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(&pdev->dev); which takes device pointer. > (Well, as I wrote below, I could > alter the gianfar code by dropping the gfar_of_group_count(), so that I have > the device pointer in caller). Anyways, I don't see how dev_of_node() should > help unless you're proposing I add a of_get_child_node_count_named() or > somesuch - which I don't think makes sense. Are you forbidding yourself to change the function prototype to take a device pointer instead of device_node one? :-) > > API in this particular case. Just make sure that the function (and there > > is also a second loop AFAICS) takes struct device *dev instead of struct > > device_node *np as a parameter. > > I think I lost the track here :) Make gfar_of_group_count() to take device pointer. As simple as that. > > > I think I could actually kill the whole gfar_of_group_count() function and > > > replace it with a direct call to the device_get_child_node_count_named() - > > > but I am not at all convinced that'd be worth including the property.h to a > > > file which is currently using only of_* -stuff. Well, I suppose it can be > > > asked from netdev peeps but I am not convinced they see it as a great idea. > > > > > > If I misunderstood your meaning - please elaborate. > > > > The driver is quite old > > I remember having to modify this driver somewhere around 2010 or so. :) Time > flies. > > > and has a lot of room to improve. Briefly looking it > > may be almost fully converted to fwnode, but it's not your call (only if you > > wish). Nevertheless, using agnostic APIs if they reduce code base is fine. > > We have drivers that do OF and fwnode mixed approach (for various reasons, > > one of which is the new API that is absent in OF realm. > > Well, we can propose this to netdev people but I wouldn't be surprized if > they requested full of_node => fwnode rewrite instead of removing simple > looking loop and bringing mixture of fwnode and of_node in driver. Without doing the proposal we will never know what they will think of all this... -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
