On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:18:08PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 12:22 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:27 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: ... > > > > > + priv->rcdev.of_node = np; > > > > > > > > It's better to use device_set_node(). > > > > > > I don't see how device_set_node() can help? It works on struct device > > > pointers. Here priv->rcdev is a reset_controller_dev struct. There are > > > no users of device_set_node() in drivers/reset/. > > > > No users doesn't mean it's good. The API is relatively "new" and takes > > care of two things: > > 1) it uses agnostic interface; > > 2) it doesn't require any firmware node direct dereference. > > > > The 2) is most important here as allows us to refactor (firmware node) code > > in the future. > > I think I get the point of device_set_node(). I still do not understand > how it could help me fill the ->of_node field in a reset_controller_dev > structure? Exactly why I put the above comment as recommendation. And then I elaborated that entire reset framework should rather move towards fwnode. > Should I be using device_set_node() to fill the struct device pointer > and the reset subsystem, by some magic, will pick this up and use it > for its own of_node field? I've not seen any magic/code doing that. At bare minimum it will give beneficial things: 1) less burden in the drivers conversion in case fwnode happens (and I believe it's just matter of time) in reset framework; 2) hiding fwnode/of_node implemetation details (which is currently is layering violation to some extend (as we have a lot of *of_*() APIs to avoid direct access to of_node field in struct device). The downside is that you will need to include property.h for this only thing. And I don't see other code that can be converted to fwnode right away here. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
