Hi Pin-yen,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 12:28:33PM +0800, Pin-yen Lin wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 5:11 AM Sakari Ailus
> <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pin-yen,
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 09:30:32PM +0800, Pin-yen Lin wrote:
> > > From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When searching the device graph for device matches, check the
> > > remote-endpoint itself for a match.
> > >
> > > Some drivers register devices for individual endpoints. This allows
> > > the matcher code to evaluate those for a match too, instead
> > > of only looking at the remote parent devices. This is required when a
> > > device supports two mode switches in its endpoints, so we can't simply
> > > register the mode switch with the parent node.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pin-yen Lin <treapking@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > I intended to give my Reviewed-by: but there's something still needs to be
> > addressed. See below.
> >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v11:
> > > - Added missing fwnode_handle_put in drivers/base/property.c
> > >
> > > Changes in v10:
> > > - Collected Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags
> > >
> > > Changes in v6:
> > > - New in v6
> > >
> > > drivers/base/property.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > index 2a5a37fcd998..e6f915b72eb7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > > @@ -1223,6 +1223,22 @@ static unsigned int fwnode_graph_devcon_matches(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > break;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Some drivers may register devices for endpoints. Check
> > > + * the remote-endpoints for matches in addition to the remote
> > > + * port parent.
> > > + */
> > > + node = fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint(ep);
> >
> > Here fwnode_graph_get_remote_endpoint() returns an endpoint...
> >
> > > + if (fwnode_device_is_available(node)) {
> >
> > and you're calling fwnode_device_is_available() on the endpoint node, which
> > always returns true.
> >
> > Shouldn't you call this on the device node instead? What about match()
> > below?
>
> Yes we should have checked the availability on the device node itself
> instead of the endpoint node. But regarding the match() call, we need
> to call it with the endpoint node because that's where we put the
> "mode-switch" properties and register the mode switches on. We can't
> use the device node because we want to register two mode switches for
> the same device node.
Ok.
I think it should be documented for both fwnode_connection_find_match() and
fwnode_connection_find_matches() may then be also called with the endpoint
node.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
