Hi Clément,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:39:21AM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> Le Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:48:00 +0200,
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 05:26:45PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> > > In order to allow matching devices with software node with
> > > device_get_match_data(), use fwnode_get_match_data() for
> > > .device_get_match_data operation.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > + .device_get_match_data = fwnode_get_match_data,
> >
> > Huh? It should be other way around, no?
> > I mean that each of the resource providers may (or may not) provide a
> > method for the specific fwnode abstraction.
> >
>
> Indeed, it should be the other way. But since this function is generic
> and uses only fwnode API I guessed it would be more convenient to
> define it in the fwnode generic part and use it for specific
> implementation. I could have modified device_get_match_data to call it
> if there was no .device_get_match_data operation like this:
>
> const void *device_get_match_data(struct device *dev)
> {
> if (!fwnode_has_op(fwnode, device_get_match_data)
> return fwnode_get_match_data(dev);
> return fwnode_call_ptr_op(dev_fwnode(dev),device_get_match_data, dev);
> }
>
> But I thought it was more convenient to do it by setting the
> .device_get_match_data field of software_node operations.
Should this function be called e.g. software_node_get_match_data() instead,
as it seems to be specific to software nodes?
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
