On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:25:45 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:47:56PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:03:29 +0200 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 05:42:28PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > ... > > > > I'm a bit skeptical about need of this work. What I would prefer to see > > > is getting rid of OF-centric drivers in IIO. With that, we would need > > > only fwnode part to be properly implemented. > > > > To be honest main reason for doing of first was that they have unit tests :) > > fwnode also has KUnit test. Have you considered adding test cases there? > > > The IIO drivers were more of a proving ground than cases I really cared > > out cleaning up. However I'm always of the view that better to make > > some improvement now than wait for a perfect improvement later. > > Yes, but in my opinion _in this particular case_ it brings more churn and > some maybe even not good from educational purposes, i.e. one can look at > the current series and think "oh, OF is still in use, let me provide my > driver OF-only (for whatever reasons behind)", while targeting conversion > first will tell people: "hey, there is an agnostic device property framework > that should be used in a new code and that's why we have been converting old > drivers too". > > > However one or two are not going to be converted to fwnode handling > > any time soon because they make use of phandle based referencing for > > driver specific hook ups that isn't going to get generic handling any > > time soon. > > Sure, exceptions happen. After the series converting over most of the cases this patch set touched in IIO, I have rcar-gyroadc and the unit test left, which are enough to show the purpose of the patch and put a few real users in place. Will submit a v2 with just those 2 users. Ideal would be to get these in for the merge window so it is available for other subsystems next cycle. > > > I'll probably focus on getting the fwnode version of this moving > > forwards first though and 'maybe' convert a few of the easier ones > > of these over to that framework to reduce how many users of this > > we end up with in IIO. > > Thanks! >
