Hi dee Ho Laurent,
On 20/03/2025 16:26, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Matti,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:35:35AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
It appears that the concept of available firmware nodes is not really
applicable to the scenarios where a specific name is required from a
node.
As explained[1] by Sakari:
"OF only enumerates available nodes via the fwnode API, software nodes
don't have the concept but on ACPI I guess you could have a difference
in nodes where you have device sub-nodes that aren't available. Still,
these ACPI device nodes don't have meaningful names in this context
(they're 4-character object names) so you wouldn't use them like this
anyway."
Use the fwnode_for_each_child_node() instead of the
fwnode_for_each_available_child_node() In order to make it clearly
visible that the 'availability' of the nodes does not need to be
considered here.
Why not ? Node availability is a concept that exists in DT, and this
driver has only been tested on DT-based systems.
I admit I need to study this then. I just took what Sakari said for
granted, without taking any further look at this.
I mean following quote:
"OF only enumerates available nodes via the fwnode API".
I interpreted it as if, in the dt based systems, the nodes which aren't
available, wouldn't be enumerated and available via the fwnode APIs. If
this is not true, then we probably need to re-re-re-consider also the
need for the fwnode_for_each_available_named_child_node().
Why can't we keep the
code as-is ?
If I am mistaken and the 'availability' has a meaning - then we can and
should. If not, then this discussion should serve as a good example why
the code should be changed ;)
I hope Sakari can share his view :)
Yours,
-- Matti
