On 12/2/21 11:10 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-12-02 17:52, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Or just adopt the same construct in the MPM driver. At this stage, drivers
> requiring a platform_device are the minority.
Works for me.
--
Florian
