On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 10:59:56PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > 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? Something I tried to do in the past but failed. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20211207162457.18450-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
