On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 10:59 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 04:40:05PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:10 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 08:32:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: ... > > > > > - /* Used by sysfs and configfs callbacks. */ > > > > > - dev_set_drvdata(&gc->gpiodev->dev, chip); > > > > > + /* Used by sysfs callbacks. */ > > > > > + dev_set_drvdata(swnode->dev, chip); > > > > > > > > dev pointer of firmware node is solely for dev links. Is it the case here? > > > > Seems to me you luckily abuse it. > > > > > > I don't think so. If anything we have a helper in the form of > > > get_dev_from_fwnode() but it takes reference to the device while we > > > don't need it - we know it'll be there because we created it. > > > > > > This information (struct device of the GPIO device) can also be > > > retrieved by iterating over the device children of the top platform > > > device and comparing their fwnodes against the one we got passed down > > > from probe() but it's just so many extra steps. > > > > > > Or we can have a getter in gpio/driver.h for that but I don't want to > > > expose another interface is we can simply use the fwnode. > > > > dev pointer in the fwnode strictly speaking is optional. No-one, except > > its solely user, should rely on it (its presence and lifetime). > > Where is this documented? Because just by a quick glance into > drivers/base/core.c I can tell that if a device has an fwnode then > fwnode->dev gets assigned when the device is created and cleared when > it's removed (note: note even attached to driver, just > created/removed). Seems like pretty reliable behavior to me. Yes, and even that member in fwnode is a hack in my opinion. We should not mix layers and the idea in the future to get rid of the fwnode_handle to be _embedded_ into struct device. It should be separate entity, and device instance may use it as a linked list. Currently we have a few problems because of the this design mistake. The get_dev_from_fwnode() is used only in devlink and I want to keep it that way. Nobody else should use it, really. We can discuss with Saravana, but I don't believe he can convince me otherwise. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko