On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:44:41AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 20:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > I can't see adding calls like this all over the tree just to solve a > > > > > bus-specific problem, you are adding of_* calls where they aren't > > > > > needed, or wanted, at all. > > > > > > This isn't bus specific, I'm not sure what makes you say that? > > > > > You are making it bus-specific by putting these calls all over the tree > > > in different bus subsystems semi-randomly for all I can determine. > > > > Do you mean firmware rather than bus here? I think that's the confusion > > I have... > > Certainly, if it literally is adding of_* calls then that would seem to > be gratuitously firmware-specific. Nothing should be using those these > days; any new code should be using the generic device property APIs > (except in special cases). I asked Linus Walleij about that with the fwnode_get_named_gpiod() stuff, and Linus didn't seem to know how this should be used. It doesn't help that dev->fwnode is not initialised, but dev->of_node is. Are we supposed to grope around in dev->of_node for the embedded fwnode instead of using dev->fwnode? At the moment, at least to me, fwnode looks like some kind of experimental half-baked thing rather than a real usable solution. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
