Hi Dan, On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 08:56:07PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > Hi Sakari > > On 20/10/2020 13:06, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:19:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > >>> fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() will optionally parse enabled devices > >>> only; that status being determined through the .device_is_available() op > >>> of the device's fwnode. As software_nodes don't have that operation and > >>> adding it is meaningless, we instead need to check if the device's fwnode > >>> is a software_node and if so pass the appropriate flag to disable that > >>> check > >> Period. > >> > >> I'm wondering if actually this can be hidden in fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id(). > > The device availability test is actually there for a reason. Some firmware > > implementations put all the potential devices in the tables and only one > > (of some) of them are available. > > > > Could this be implemented so that if the node is a software node, then get > > its parent and then see if that is available? > > > > I guess that could be implemented in software node ops. Any opinions? > Actually when considering the cio2 device, it seems that > set_secondary_fwnode() actually overwrites the _primary_, given > fwnode_is_primary(dev->fwnode) returns false. So in at least some cases, > this wouldn't work. Ouch. I wonder when this happens --- have you checked what's the primary there? I guess it might be if it's a PCI device without the corresponding ACPI device node? I remember you had an is_available implementation that just returned true for software nodes in an early version of the set? I think it would still be a lesser bad in this case. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
