On Monday, March 16, 2015 09:47:22 AM Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 02:09:06AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Friday, March 13, 2015 04:24:11 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> OK > >> > >> So below is what it takes to use struct fwnode_handle to represent ACPI > >> companions. > >> > >> Rafael > >> > >> > >> --- > >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: driver core / ACPI: Represent ACPI companions using fwnode_handle > >> > >> Now that we have struct fwnode_handle, we can use that to point to > >> ACPI companions from struct device objects instead of pointing to > >> struct acpi_device directly. > >> > >> There are two benefits from that. First, the somewhat ugly and > >> hackish struct acpi_dev_node can be dropped and, second, the same > >> struct fwnode_handle pointer can be used in the future to point > >> to other (non-ACPI) firmware device node types. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c | 2 +- > >> drivers/acpi/dock.c | 2 +- > >> drivers/base/platform.c | 2 +- > >> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 4 ++-- > >> include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 3 ++- > >> include/linux/acpi.h | 7 ++++--- > >> include/linux/device.h | 13 +++---------- > >> include/linux/fwnode.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/linux/i2c.h | 4 ++-- > >> include/linux/platform_device.h | 2 +- > >> include/linux/property.h | 11 +---------- > >> 11 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > > Nice, I like the driver core changes: > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I like it too. The only comment I have is I would use a static inline > helper for getting/setting the fwnode_handle pointer. Yes, that's the next step. :-) > The reason being > that there are situations where we're going to want to attach both a > DT node and static data to the same node. Using a helper isolates the > rest of the kernel from any future changes here. Right. I'm going to send a couple more patches on top of this one going in that direction. > However, despite that comment: > > Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> > > My comment isn't significant enough to hold up this change. OK then, I'm queuing this up for 4.1. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
