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

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> 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?

In my opinion, yes. But less beneficial from it.

> 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.

Right.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko