Hi Andy, On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:09:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 03:25:58PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > > On 7/25/23 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Propagate firmware node by using a specific API call, i.e. device_set_node(). > > ... > > > > + device_set_node(&dev->adapter.dev, dev_fwnode(dev->dev)); > > > > Would this be better to put in the same place where ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is > > removed like below? I'd keep this static inline function in the header file > > as simple as possible. All extra code might invite adding even more. > > We come again to the duplication and prone to deviation code, I wouldn't like > to go this way. The idea of this call is to unify and avoid mistakes, like > updating only in ACPI or DT (or any new one if happens in the future) case > and leaving the second one unconsidered. it's anyway an inline function becoming a bit too fat. Can't we make it not inline? > That said, I would rather drop this patch until i2c core will take this > once for all (may be never in the reasonable future :-). Which patch are you referring to that should be taken into i2c core? Andi
