On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 03/03/2025 13:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:34:49PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > What about the second loop (in gfar_of_init)? > > I mean perhaps we want to have fwnode_for_each_named_child_node() > > and its device variant that may be also reused in the IIO code and here. > > I agree the fwnode_for_each_named_child_node() would be useful. I think I > said that already during the previous review rounds. There is plenty of code > which could be converted to use it. > This, however, is far more than I am willing to do in the context of a > simple IIO driver addition. The "BD79124 ADC suupport" is already now 10 > patches, 2 of which are directly related to it. But you already will have at least one user (IIO code) and second as in RFC. I do not ask you to _add_ patches. > I propose adding the for_each_named_child_node() as a separate series with > bunch of users appended. That's be plenty of beans to count for those who > like following the statistics :) It would sound like an unneeded churn as we first introduce something that we already know needs a refactoring. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
