On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 2:48 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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. > > OK now I get it. One question: would using fwnode abstractions make > sense for a driver that is devicetree-only, and will stay that way? In my opinion, yes. But less beneficial from it. > However this sounds out-of-scope of such a driver addition. I also am > not familiar enough (yet?) with the reset subsystem and/or fwnode to be > able to bring this kind of changes upstream. Right. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
