On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:07:24AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:33 PM Matti Vaittinen > <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > +unsigned int device_get_child_node_count_named(const struct device *dev, > > + const char *name) > > I think this should be implemented as > fwnode_get_child_node_count_named() with the device variant being just > a wrapper. Good catch! That's also added to our misunderstanding with Matti who didn't get the role of dev_of_node() vs. dev_fwnode() in the first place. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
