On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:15 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > Software nodes allow us to represent hierarchies for device components > > that don't have their struct device representation yet - for instance: > > banks of GPIOs under a common GPIO expander. The core gpiolib core > > core .. core ?! > > > however doesn't offer any way of passing this information from the > > drivers. > > > > This extends struct gpio_chip with a pointer to fwnode that can be set > > by the driver and used to pass device properties for child nodes. > > > > This is similar to how we handle device-tree sub-nodes with > > CONFIG_OF_GPIO enabled. > > Not sure I understand the proposal. Can you provide couple of (simplest) > examples? > > And also it sounds like reinventing a wheel. What problem do you have that you > need to solve this way? > > ... > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) > > + if (gc->of_node && gc->fwnode) { > > + pr_err("%s: tried to set both the of_node and fwnode in gpio_chip\n", > > + __func__); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > +#endif /* CONFIG_OF_GPIO */ > > I don't like this. It seems like a hack right now. > > Is it possible to convert all GPIO controller drivers to provide an fwnode > rather than doing this? (I believe in most of the drivers we can drop > completely the of_node assignment). > Yes, it's definitely a good idea but I would be careful with just dropping the of_node assignments as callbacks may depend on them later. Also it's not just about the gpio_chip of_node assignment - drivers also use a bunch of OF APIs all around the place. I would prefer that it be done one by one and every modified driver be tested. Bart