On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:52 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 23:33:12 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:22 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > - for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > > + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) {
> >
> > Isn't this
> > fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()
> > better to use?
>
> Given we would be extracting the fwnode just to call this
> loop, I'd say no, device version makes more sense..
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > So the gaps I see are
> > device_get_available_child_node_count()
> > and
> > device_for_each_available_child_node()
>
> Do we then fix the fact that
> device_for_each_child_node() will call the _available() form
> for device tree? That seems inconsistent currently and
> I was assuming that was deliberate...
I'm not sure I got your point. Mine (see below) is to add the APIs
that you want to use as a direct replacement of the corresponding OF
counterparts.
> > Both of them I think are easy to add and avoid possible breakage.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
