On Friday 13 March 2015 15:10:38 Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:17:40 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > That doesn't seem to go in the right direction to be honest. > > > > Actually, having introduced struct fwnode_handle, we should perhaps try to > > replace both of_node and acpi_node with a single struct fwnode_handle pointer > > and then add a new fwnode_type for the "pdata" stuff. > > I agree on this, but it will be a lot of work to convert... > > > If you don't want to deal with of_node, which I can understand easily, it > > may be worth trying with acpi_node alone at this point and once you have > > the fwnode_handle pointer, you might use it for both ACPI and "pdata"? > > > > Grant, Arnd, I wonder what you think? > > That makes sense, and we can populate the fwnode_handle even when > using DT. That will allow a transition period to move everyone over to > the fwnode_handle. Agreed on both as well. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
