On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > On Do, 2024-02-29 at 15:48 +0200, 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. > > For context, there have been initial patches for this, that turned out > not to be necessary later on: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220324141237.297207-1-clement.leger@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > At this point, there still is no real use case for non-DT reset > controls on the horizon. I can argue on that if we have something like reset-gpio (and we have a such). With this in place the ACPI can also provide descriptions for that. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
