On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:20:50PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 04:31:19PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > + if (!parent_pset) > > > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > + > > > > + p = pset_create_set(properties); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(p)) > > > > + return ERR_CAST(p); > > > > + > > > > + p->dev = dev; > > > > > > That looks wrong. > > > > > > I'm guessing the assumption here is that the child nodes will never be > > > assigned to their own devices, but you can't do that. It will limit > > > the use of the child nodes to a very small number of cases, possibly > > > only to gpios. > > > > If I need to assign a node to a device I'll use device_add_properties() > > API. device_add_child_properties() is for nodes living "below" the > > device. > > device_add_properties() is not available to us before we have the > actual struct device meant for the properties. If the child device is > populated outside of the "boardfiles" then we have to be able to link > it to the child node afterwards. I think we are talking about totally different use cases and that is why we are having hard time coming to a mutually agreeable solution. Could you please describe in more detail what you would like to achieve, and preferably show how it is described now with DT and/or ACPI, so that I have a better frame of reference. Thanks. -- Dmitry
