On 12/2/21 4:21 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> It makes sense to just pass device_node for callback in IRQCHIP_DECLARE
> case, but not so much for IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER one, because
> platform_driver probe/init usually needs device pointer for various
> purposes, e.g. resource allocation, service request, device prefixed
> message output, etc. Create a new callback type irqchip_init_cb_t which
> takes platform_device pointer as parameter, and update the existing
> IRQCHIP_PLATFORM_DRIVER users accordingly.
>
> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Could you copy all recipients on all 3 patches plus your cover letter
next time so we have the full context? Thanks!
[snip]
>
> -static int __init bcm7120_l2_intc_probe_7120(struct device_node *dn,
> +static int __init bcm7120_l2_intc_probe_7120(struct platform_device *pdev,
> struct device_node *parent)
> {
> - return bcm7120_l2_intc_probe(dn, parent, bcm7120_l2_intc_iomap_7120,
> + return bcm7120_l2_intc_probe(pdev->dev.of_node, parent,
> + bcm7120_l2_intc_iomap_7120,
> "BCM7120 L2");
If you look further into that driver, you will see that we do something
like this in bcm7120_l2_intc_probe:
pdev = of_find_device_by_node(dn);
if (!pdev) {
ret = -ENODEV;
goto out_free_data;
}
which would be completely superfluous now that we pass a platform_device
directly. Can you rework your patch so as to eliminate that
of_find_device_by_ndoe() (and the companion put_device call)?
--
Florian
