On Tue 2019-03-26 16:30:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:43PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > Do we support swnode here? > > > > > > > > > > Good question. The swnodes have no hierarchy at the moment (they're only > > > > > created for a struct device as a parent) and they do not have human-readable > > > > > names. So I'd say it's not relevant right now. Should these two change, > > > > > support for swnode could (and should) be added later on. > > > > > > > > Heikki, what do you think about this? > > > > > > Well, the swnodes do have hierarchy. That was kind of the whole point > > > of introducing them. They now can also be named using "name" property. > > > See commit 344798206f171c5abea7ab1f9762fa526d7f539d. > > > > Right; I saw the function after initially replying to Andy but I missed > > where the node name came from. :-) Now I know... > > > > I can add support for swnode, too, if you like. > > Definitely! It might really make sense to obsolete %pOF and handle all three (OF, ACPI, Software) nodes using the same %pfw modifiers. If I get it correctly, we could distinguish them by fwnode->ops, see is_of_node(), is_acpi_static_node(), is_software_node(). Best Regards, Petr
