On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:13:43AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2024/4/26 03:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:53:22AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> > > On 2024/4/26 02:08, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
...
> > Are you speaking to yourself? I'm totally lost.
> >
> > Please, if you want to give a constructive feedback, try to understand
> > the topic from different aspects and then clearly express it.
>
> OK,
>
> The previous email analysis the non-DT cases exhaustively, this email intend to
> demonstrate the more frequently use case.
>
> That is, in the *DT('OF')* based systems,
> device_get_match_data() is completely equivalent to
> of_device_get_match_data().
> So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost".
This is not true. It's only part of the cases, i.e. DT. So, I assume you meant
"So the net results of applying this patch are "no gains and no lost" in DT case".
> Things will become clear if we divide the whole problem into two cases(DT and non-DT)
> to discuss, that's it. That's all I can tell.
Not really. non-DT cases can also be divided to "fwnode backed or not", and
the former might be subdivided to "is it swnode backed or real fwnode one?"
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
