On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:06 AM Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 27/02/2025 16:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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? :-) > > > > This is our point of misunderstanding. As I wrote, and as you can see > from the prototype, the function _is_ taking the device pointer. Hence I > didn't understand how dev_of_node() should help us. > > >>> 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. > > that'd just make the gfar_of_group_count() a wrapper of the > of_get_child_node_count_named(). I prefer killing whole > gfar_of_group_count(). Sigh. This is not that hard. - unsigned int num_grps = gfar_of_group_count(np); + unsigned int num_grps = device_get_child_node_count_named(&ofdev->dev, "queue-groups"); And remove gfar_of_group_count() of course. Rob
