Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] reset: eyeq5: add platform driver

[Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:18:08PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 12:22 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > > > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:27 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > > +	priv->rcdev.of_node = np;
> > > > >
> > > > > It's better to use device_set_node().
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see how device_set_node() can help? It works on struct device
> > > > pointers. Here priv->rcdev is a reset_controller_dev struct. There are
> > > > no users of device_set_node() in drivers/reset/.
> > >
> > > No users doesn't mean it's good. The API is relatively "new" and takes
> > > care of two things:
> > > 1) it uses agnostic interface;
> > > 2) it doesn't require any firmware node direct dereference.
> > >
> > > The 2) is most important here as allows us to refactor (firmware node) code
> > > in the future.
> > 
> > I think I get the point of device_set_node(). I still do not understand
> > how it could help me fill the ->of_node field in a reset_controller_dev
> > structure?
>
> Exactly why I put the above comment as recommendation. And then I elaborated
> that entire reset framework should rather move towards fwnode.

OK now I get it. One question: would using fwnode abstractions make
sense for a driver that is devicetree-only, and will stay that way?

However this sounds out-of-scope of such a driver addition. I also am
not familiar enough (yet?) with the reset subsystem and/or fwnode to be
able to bring this kind of changes upstream.

Thanks,

--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com